Monday, February 04, 2019

How bad was Maroon 5?

Not a Maroon 5 fan.  I think the only thing I've written about them, other than a passing sentence, ever was "Kat's Korner: Adam Levine itches for one on the flip side."  But I'm surprised by all the anger and hate directed at the group -- especially considering how bland they are.

I don't know why they have a Superbowl half-time show anyway. 

To succeed it requires a Diana Ross, Paul McCartney or Prince type mega-star and there are not a lot of those. 

This year, suddenly, the take-a-knee movement resulted in people condemning it.

Where are they at other times/  It's a violent sport, does that not bother anyone?

Football fans love the game.  And people who are afraid to be honest go along with the pretense of loving it (especially true of scared men).

But a lot of us just don't care for it.

I didn't watch.  I didn't see the performances.  I did see photos today and it appears Adam even tried to go shirtless in order to wow people.  I was surprised that he was shirtless if only because he's added even more tattoos since the "Moves Like Jagger" video.  I thought, in small photos, that he was wearing some sort of shirt but it was all those tattoos.  I also wondered about, when he did have a shirt on, why he repeatedly changed it? 

As I noted here (I think I did, anyway) a few weeks back, the only thing I cared about was Gladys Knight.  She was going to be performing the national anthem.




She did an amazing job.  Good for Gladys. 

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

 
Monday, February 4, 2019.  Was Margaret Brennan even awake during her interview with Donald Trump?


Yesterday, US President Donald Trump appeared on CBS' FACE THE NATION.  Iraq was briefly a topic.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I'm not telegraphing anything.  No, no, no. There's a difference. When President Obama pulled out of Iraq in theory we had Iraq. In other words, we had Iraq. We never had Syria because President Obama never wanted to violate the red line in the sand. So we never had Syria. I was the one that actually violated the red line when I hit Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles, if you remember. But President Obama chose not to do that. When he chose not to do that, he showed tremendous weakness. But we didn't have Syria whereas we had Iraq. So when he did what he did in Iraq, which was a mistake. Being in Iraq was a mistake. Okay. Being in Iraq- it was a big mistake to go- one of the greatest mistakes going into the Middle East that our country has ever made. One of the greatest mistakes that we've ever made--

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you want to keep troops there now?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --but when it was chosen-- well, we spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Whoa, that's news. You're keeping troops in Iraq because you want to be able to strike in Iran?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, because I want to be able to watch Iran. All I want to do is be able to watch. We have an unbelievable and expensive military base built in Iraq. It's perfectly situated for looking at all over different parts of the troubled Middle East rather than pulling up. And this is what a lot of people don't understand. We're going to keep watching and we're going to keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things, we're going to know it before they do.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you're going to trust the intelligence that you receive?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am going to trust the intelligence that I'm putting there, but I will say this: my intelligence people, if they said in fact that Iran is a wonderful kindergarten, I disagree with them 100 percent. It is a vicious country that kills many people. When you talk about torture and so many other things. And- maybe they'll come back. The country is getting absolutely- when I ended the horrible Iran nuclear deal- it was a horrible deal done by President Obama and John Kerry that didn't know what the hell he was doing. When I ended that deal, Margaret, all of a sudden Iran became a different country. They became- very rapidly- right now they're a country that's in big financial trouble. Let's see what happens.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to move on here but I should say your intel chiefs do say Iran's abiding by that nuclear deal. I know you think it's a bad deal, but--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I disagree with them. I'm- I'm- by the way--

MARGARET BRENNAN: You disagree with that assessment?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --I have intel people, but that doesn't mean I have to agree. President Bush had intel people that said Saddam Hussein--

MARGARET BRENNAN: Sure.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --in Iraq had nuclear weapons- had all sorts of weapons of mass destruction. Guess what? Those intel people didn't know what the hell they were doing, and they got us tied up in a war that we should have never been in. And we've spent seven trillion dollars in the Middle East and we have lost lives--





Margaret Brennan isn't very smart.  That was obvious when she rushed to pout about a possible withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Look, whether we should have been there in the first place, that's first question. Second question--

MARGARET BRENNAN: That's where 9/11 was launched from.


"That's where 9/11 was launched from," insists Margaret.  Huh?  The planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon took off from Afghanistan?  That's the literal meaning of her stupid sentence.

The second meaning -- where we have to provide details -- would be that Osama bin Laden (considered the mastermind behind 9/11) met with his key player in Afghanistan.  I believe the key player in the official narrative is.  Supposedly, coordination took place out of Hamburg, Germany.  A meeting between Mohamed and Atta Ramzi bin al Shibh in July 2001 is considered key.  And that meeting took place in Afghanistan?  No.  It took place in Spain.

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan.  The Taliban was an awful group (probably still is) but it was not responsible for 9/11.  It comes into play because Osama bin Laden was there at some point.  Then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell stated Osama was responsible for 9/11 and that the Taliban should hand him over.  They responded: Show us your evidence and we will.  Colin replied back: Hand him over and then we'll show you.

On such bickering -- in the official narrative -- the Afghanistan War was started.  (The late Gore Vidal repeatedly noted that there were other issues at play including a desired oil pipeline.)

That is a very brief and tiny overview.  But Margaret Brennan's nonsense fails to even demonstrate awareness of those basic facts.

Her stupidity just shines through.  And that includes on Iraq.  This is a serious topic -- the ongoing Iraq War which is now one month away from the 16 year mark.  And his comments were rather important in many ways.

First of all?  She should have asked what the Iraqi government says about this plan.  But she didn't.

Michael Burke (THE HILL) reports:

Iraqi President Barham Salih on Monday said that President Trump didn't ask permission to leave U.S. troops in Iraq to monitor Iran.
Salih said U.S. troops are in the country with the mission to combat terrorism and told the U.S. not to "pursue your own policy priorities" in the country, according to Reuters.
“Don’t overburden Iraq with your own issues,” Salih added. “The U.S. is a major power ... but do not pursue your own policy priorities, we live here.”


Now the media loves to call Donald a liar -- sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly.  Margaret had the perfect opportunity to test that out by asking what the Iraqi government says about his plan.  But she couldn't be bothered.  She had a list of issues she wanted to tick off.  She didn't actually want to conduct an interview.

What she did, repeatedly, was embarrassing.

She didn't confront him with the reality that his plan for Iraq is in direct opposition to what he's announced for Syria and Afghanistan.  She didn't ask him if this was supposed to be similar to when US troops remained (for year and are still there) in South Korea. She didn't ask what he needed from the government of Iran to pull US troops from Iraq.  She asked a question and then, mistaking her role as moderator of a public affairs program for conducting The Proust Questionnaire for VANITY FAIR.

Barbara Walters -- even at her worst (Colin Powell's blot) -- could and did listen during an interview and could deliver follow ups.  Margaret isn't much of a journalist and must tick off from a script.

What Margaret found so uninteresting, what she rushed through, is actually the only topic of real news from her interview.  And what she couldn't grasp, the rest of the media did.

ALJAZEERA opens with, "US forces must remain in Iraq so the United States can keep a close eye on neighbouring Iran, according to President Donald Trump."    Mark Moore (NEW YORK POST) adds, "Despite calling the decision to go to war in Iraq 'one of the greatest mistakes' the country has ever made, he said the US should take advantage of its strong military presence in Iraq."  Edward Helmore (THE GUARDIAN) offers, "Donald Trump wants to keep US troops in Iraq, in order to 'watch' Iran."  Jennifer Epstein, Mark Niquette and Nour Al Ali (BLOOMBERG NEWS) note, "President Donald Trump stood by his plans to reduce the U.S. footprint in the Middle East but said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that he intends to maintain a presence in Iraq, in part to keep tabs on Iran."  CNN's Samantha Vinograd insists that  US troops do not have any authority to fight Iran from Iraq.  Asawin Suebsaeng (DAILY BEAST) ponders the opposing positions Donald's presenting and notes that foreign affairs are expected to play a big part in the upcoming State Of The Union address.

“We spent a fortune on building this incredible base, we might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran, because Iran is a problem.” –President Trump on wanting to keep US troops in Iraq
0:32
1,884 views

Again, this was the key part of the exchange and Margaret had no follow up of note.  It was as though she wasn't even present for her own interview.

Eric Schmitt and Alissa J. Rubin (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

Mr. Trump’s comments come as the United States has quietly been negotiating with Iraq for weeks to allow perhaps hundreds of American commandos and support troops now operating in Syria to shift to bases in Iraq and strike the Islamic State from there. Military leaders are seeking to maintain pressure on the militant group as the president fundamentally reorders policy toward Syria and toward Afghanistan, where peace talks with the Taliban are underway.
But senior American officers and diplomats said Mr. Trump’s comments could undercut the delicate negotiations in Iraq by inflaming fears among the Iraqis that the moves would be a guise to check Iran, potentially straining ties with Baghdad and weakening the ability of the United States to respond to Islamic State remnants in Syria.

The remarks he made are similar to what he said back in December.


This is a part of President ’s speech in Al Asad Air base, 26th Dec 2018 where he says he will keep US troops in not only for preventing IS insurgency but also to watch




This is what FACE THE NATION thought their big Iraq moment in the interview was:

. says “we’ll come back if we have to” when asks about a potential resurgence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, “We have very fast airplanes, we have very good cargo planes. We can come back very quickly.”
874K views
0:19 / 1:28
1:09
874K views
 
 



Here's the transcript to that section of the interview:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, everything's harder. But, you know you pay a big price for troops on the ground. We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on military. We're the policemen of the world and we don't--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because the concern in here by your intelligence chiefs, though, is that you could in that vacuum see a resurgence of ISIS.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Sure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: See a resurgence of terror groups like Al-Qaeda--
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: And you know what we'll do? We'll come back if we have to. We have very fast airplanes, we have very good cargo planes. We can come back very quickly, and I'm not leaving. We have a base in Iraq and the base is a fantastic edifice. I mean I was there recently, and I couldn't believe the money that was spent on these massive runways. And these- I've rarely seen anything like it. And it's there. And we'll be there. And frankly, we're hitting the caliphate from Iraq and as we slowly withdraw from Syria. Now the other thing--
MARGARET BRENNAN: How many troops are still in Syria? When are they coming home?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: 2,000 troops.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When are they coming home?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They're starting to, as we gain the remainder, the final remainder of the caliphate of the area, they'll be going to our base in Iraq, and ultimately some will be coming home. But we're going to be there and we're going to be staying--
MARGARET BRENNAN: So that's a matter of months?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to protect Israel. We have to protect other things that we have. But we're- yeah, they'll be coming back in a matter of time. Look, we're protecting the world. We're spending more money than anybody's ever spent in history, by a lot. We spent, over the last five years, close to 50 billion dollars a year in Afghanistan. That's more than most countries spend for everything including education, medical, and everything else, other than a few countries.



New content at THIRD:


Saturday, February 02, 2019

Merry Prankster Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is someone I frequently have applause for.  I do not mean to imply that she is my hero.  She's not battling to end wars, she's really only getting on the nerves of a lot of pompous people -- in Congress and out.  I applaud her for getting on their nerves.


But community member Darcy e-mailed me this from Genevieve Leigh's piece for WSWS:




  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the youngest woman to be elected to Congress, has rapidly become one of the highest-profile political figures in Washington.
She is the subject of hundreds of articles in the mainstream media. She has been featured on late-night talk shows and was given a special segment on the CBS show “60 Minutes.” Her Twitter account has generated more interactions—retweets plus likes—than party leaders Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Among political figures in the US, she is second only to President Donald Trump.
There are two factors behind Ocasio-Cortez’s sudden rise to political prominence. Among broader sections of the population, she has attracted support as a result of her association with socialism. The two most popular figures in the Democratic Party, Senator Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, nominally claim to be socialists. Under conditions in which the population is fed an unrelenting diet of right-wing and reactionary politics, anyone who speaks about issues of social inequality can quickly get widespread support.
The second and more decisive factor is the conscious promotion and elevation of Ocasio-Cortez by the Democratic Party and the media. Ocasio-Cortez performs a critical political function—that of providing a left cover for a right-wing party, the better to block the development of a genuine movement against social inequality and capitalism.





I don't disagree with anything in that report.  To be clear, I am not marching behind AOC or seeing her as the second coming of Shirley Chisholm.   I just enjoy the moments when she irritates the establishment -- I see her as Merry Prankster, if you will.


My apologies to Darcy if my writing gave any other impression.


I would love for AOC to develop into an amazing member of Congress.  I don't think that will happen for her or her colleagues.  I think the days of John Conyers and Pat Schroeder are long gone.


Okay, now let me do some science because I didn't do any this week.  From CBS NEWS:








Too many young kids are using too much toothpaste, increasing their risk of streaky or splotchy teeth when they get older, according to a government survey released Thursday.
About 40 percent of kids ages 3 to 6 used a brush that was full or half-full of toothpaste, even though experts recommend no more than a pea-sized amount, the study found.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention findings were based on a survey of parents of more than 5,000 kids ages 3 to 15.






That may have been me as a child.  Until I lost my baby teeth, I had the worst discoloration on my teeth and when I was four and five, I used to treat toothpaste like candy.  They had to keep it in the medicine chest above the sink because if it was in a drawer or on the counter, I would grab the whole tube, run to a closet with a picture book and hide out until I'd eaten all the tooth paste -- just sucking it out of the tube like it was cookie dough.


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


Friday, February 1, 2019.  Australia's government admits some civilians might have been killed in Mosul bombings, Amnesty International calls for other governments to step forward, and much more.


Starting with images of the flooding in Iraq this past fall.



The Copernicus Sentinel-1 satellite takes us over one of the areas in Iraq that suffered flooding recently in this week's edition of the #EarthfromSpace programme. Download the image: http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Imag... ★ Subscribe: http://bit.ly/ESAsubscribe and click twice on the bell button to receive our notifications. Check out our full video catalog: http://bit.ly/SpaceInVideos Follow ESA on Twitter: http://bit.ly/ESAonTwitter On Facebook: http://bit.ly/ESAonFacebook On Instagram: http://bit.ly/ESAonInstagram On Flickr: http://bit.ly/ESAonFlickr ESA is Europe's gateway to space. Our mission is to shape the development of Europe's space capability and ensure that investment in space continues to deliver benefits to the citizens of Europe and the world. Check out http://www.esa.int/ESA to get up to speed on everything space related.


From yesterday's snapshot:

The Iraqi government remains corrupt, remains unresponsive to the needs of the people, continues to arrest protesters and reporters covering protests (as events in Basra have demonstrated).  And every year, they train and retrain and then train again the Iraqi military in an effort to get it up to speed.  Of course, the Iraqi military repeatedly fails.

The western press repeatedly works overtime to lie about that.  The Iraqi military would not have 'won' Mosul without US war planes blindly bombing Mosul -- a city full of civilians. 



Andrew Tillet (Australia's FINANCIAL REVIEW) reported yesterday:

Australian fighter jets were involved in an air strike believed to have killed up to 18 civilians while fighting Islamic State terrorists in Iraq - the highest casualty rate implicating Australian forces - Defence chiefs have revealed.
But the pilots have been cleared of wrongdoing, with the investigation finding they had acted in accordance with their rules of engagement and laws of armed conflict as part of desperate efforts to save the lives of Iraqi soldiers during brutal urban combat to liberate West Mosul.
The deaths have been attributed to a lack of solid intelligence on the ground as Iraqi troops fought, with no time to properly assess whether surrounding buildings were clear of civilians before bombs were dropped.


While I have no problem with the pilots being cleared of wrongdoing, I do have a problem with those over the strikes and the policy of the strikes being cleared of wrongdoing.  Mosul is a highly populated city.  That was known.  That was known before the US or any other government started dropping bombs on Mosul to 'fight' ISIS.  There were no 'precision' strikes.  That's a lie used to lull the public into stupidity so they won't object to what's really going on -- the equivalent of carpet bombing schools, places of worship, homes, etc.



🚨 ℹ : Defence Force officials have admitted Australian jets were involved in an , which killed in
 
 



This morning, Amnesty International issued the following statement:

Responding to the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) admission that its air strikes in Mosul, Iraq may have caused up to 18 civilian deaths in 2017, Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International’s Middle East Research Director, said:

“The Australian Defence Force’s latest admission that its air strikes killed civilians during the battle for Mosul in 2017 is a step in the right direction. Once again, the Australian government has proven more willing to take responsibility for causing loss of civilian life than its coalition partners, including the UK, USA and France.

“The matter must not end here, however. The ADF should continue to lead by example by providing the further details necessary to help an independent assessment of whether this attack and its operations in Mosul complied with international humanitarian law. We know that an Australian plane struck a target in West Mosul and unintentionally killed up to 18 civilians in a nearby house. In order to understand how this happened the ADF needs to disclose more information, including the type of weapon used in the strike, the nature of the target, what measures were taken to ensure that the target was a military objective, whether other means or methods of attack that would have minimized the risk to civilians were considered, and what was done to collect information about the presence of civilians in the vicinity.

The ADF has taken a positive step by acknowledging that their attacks resulted in civilian casualties. What they must do now is provide the victims’ families with the best chance of achieving justice and accountability. The way to do this is to release the further information required.
Lynn Maalouf, Middle East Research Director   

“The ADF has taken a positive step by acknowledging that their attacks resulted in civilian casualties. What they must do now is provide the victims’ families with the best chance of achieving justice and accountability. The way to do this is to release the further information required.”

Background 

The Coalition’s battle to wrest Mosul from the armed group calling itself Islamic State (IS) began in October 2016 and ended in July 2017. Throughout the campaign, and especially in its later stages in West Mosul, the Coalition relied heavily upon air power, despite the presence of civilians trapped in the city by IS. Amnesty International revealed the effects of this upon the civilian population with its July 2017 report, At Any Cost: The Civilian Catastrophe in West Mosul, Iraq.

On 31 January 2019, the Australian Defence Force’s Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld acknowledged that as many as 18 civilians were killed in an attack on a target in West Mosul in which two Australian Super Hornet F-18 jets were involved on 13 June 2017. This follows a previous ADF admission on 28 March 2018 that it killed two adults and injured two children in a strike on Mosul that came to light following Amnesty International investigations on the ground.




Will other governments come clean?  Will the US government specifically?  Probably not.  The US government is involved in countless wars while currently working for war with Iran and Venezuela.  Bombing from war planes has always been less 'offensive' to the American people.  It's boots off the ground and, in an operation like Mosul, there's little chance of American fatalities since a group like ISIS (being a terrorist group and not the military of another country) doesn't have a fleet of airplanes.

So they know they can blindly bomb an area for weeks, months, in Mosul's case, years and the American people won't pour into the street or even bat an eye due to being lied to that these are 'precision' strikes and that the government of the United States has done 'everything possible to minimize civilian casualties.'

No, they haven't.

They haven't done anything to minimize civilian casualties.  As for doing 'everything' to minimize, doing everything would include not bombing civilian areas.  But they did bomb civilian areas -- over and over and over.

The US government will most likely never get honest about civilian casualties.  At some point in the near future (say, five years on down the line), they'll offer an under-count of the civilians killed in the Mosul bombings -- but only when they can claim some new technology has come along to make the strikes even more 'precise.'  They'll use that to sell more strikes.

It's really outrageous how little the media cares about the bombs being dropped.  (And if the media doesn't cover it, the American people have a hard time hearing about it.)

Amnesty's issued a statement and applause for that but, as we've noted repeatedly of late, there's no statement on the bombings in Iraq carried out by the Turkish government.  From Monday's snapshot:

Saturday (see "Protests in Iraq" and "About those US bases in Iraq . . ."), protesters stormed a Dohuk base (Dohuk is in northern Iraq and part of the Kurdistan Regional Government).  They were angry over Turkish war planes bombing the area the day before and killing civilians.  Salar Salim and Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) report the number of civilians killed in the bombing was six.  The Turkish military -- at their base in Dohuk -- fired at the protesters killing 1 and injuring ten more.

AFP reports, "Iraq Sunday said it would summon the Turkish ambassador over the death of a Kurdish protester after Turkish troops opened fire on demonstrators in the country’s northwest."  SPUTNIK adds:


According to the statement, the note read that Ankara’s "actions are a violation of sovereignty, incompatible with friendly relations and brotherhood between the two countries, and called on the Turkish side to stop such unilateral actions."



Maybe the issue of Turkey's bombings can finally get serious attention?  Meaning that the discussion moves beyond the wire services?

Tonight at 20:30GMT on , I will be talking on Strait Talk about the complicated nature of and 's relationship in light of the recent events in and the proposed law in to oust foreign forces.
 
 



Turkey has used the PKK as an excuse to bomb the Kurdish region of northern Iraq for over a decade.  The semi-autonomous KRG is the closet thing to a Kurdish homeland that the world has.  Is no one offended that Turkey repeatedly bombs this region?  Does no one see it as an extension of the targeting of Kurds that Turkey does within its own borders?


It's really past time for a serious conversation to take place about what has been happening.


If it does, as Blondie might ask, "Will Anything Happen?"




It's the first of the month.  UNAMI hasn't released its under-count of the dead for January yet but will do so later today.  Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) offers:

During January, 184 people were killed, and 178 were wounded. Security forces also found 142 bodies in older graves. At least 45 civilians, 25 security personnel, and 65 militants were reported killed; 84 civilians and 94 security personnel were wounded. The conflict between Turkey and Kurdistan Workers’ Party (P.K.K.) left at least 49 guerrillas dead. These numbers are similar to the December casualty figures with only the number of wounded being significantly higher. Fewer bodies were removed from mass graves.


The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, THE GUARDIAN, GORILLA RADIO, the ACLU and THE PACIFICA EVENING NEWS -- updated:


  •