Thursday, September 03, 2020

Hideous Amy Goodman enforcing and creating the silences

 My online BFF and his wife Dr. Margaret Flowers have a column that went up this week at DISSIDENT VOICE -- here's the opening:


The Republican and Democratic Party conventions showed that both major parties are failing to control the pandemic and protect people, address the climate crisis and clean up the environment, support families and businesses during the economic collapse, prevent police violence or deal with any of the other major problems we face.

These were two substance-less conventions. The Democrats focused on criticizing Trump without putting forward an agenda while the Republicans claimed Biden was a front for socialism when he is a deeply embedded corporate Democrat. Trump’s term as president has been a disaster and Biden has been consistently on the wrong side of history over his 47 years in politics. On issues today, both are out of step with the views of the majority of voters.

The two parties demonstrated that people must lead from below because the parties represent the wealthy and transnational corporations. We must continue to organize and build popular power if we are to win the changes we need.

 At the Democratic Convention, no one used the phrases Medicare for all, Green New Deal, tuition-free college and vocational school, universal basic income, or wealth tax, even though all of these issues are supported by the majority of voters. Sen. Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Andrew Yang were silenced on issues they had championed during their campaigns.

At the Republican Convention, if those policies were mentioned, they were derided or called ‘socialist.’ The two parties did not talk about economic, health, and environmental policies because neither has any solutions. Instead, the bi-partisan policies they support have created the economic, public health, and environmental crises we are facing.

The United States is in crisis because the two-party system has failed the people and the planet. On a global scale, the United States is rated as a “flawed democracy” and corruption is on the rise. Studies within the United States find that popular support for a policy has no impact on whether it will be made into law by Congress, while wealthy interests have a significant impact over whether a law passes or fails. This is consistent with the United States being a plutocracy ruled by the wealthy.

As we have written in the past, the United States is a mirage democracy where the candidates are largely chosen by the power holders and the people get to vote for one or another corporate-approved candidate. A few progressive candidates are elected from time to time but they are marginalized at the federal level. If they do gain power, the elites move swiftly to rein them in or redistrict them out.

 Third party candidates are kept out of the debates and the media, even left-leaning media like Democracy Now has not interviewed the Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins although he’ll be on the ballot in most states. Third party candidates have to fight to be on the ballot in each state, a challenge often made more difficult by Democrats and Republicans challenging them and tying them up in court.


Well it's taken my BFF awhile but good for him for noting how Amy Goodman has completely shut out Howie.  It is completely.  As my very good friend C.I. pointed out, Amy didn't even bother to announce -- not even in headlines -- that Howie was voted the nominee -- the presidential nominee -- at the Green Party's convention.  

Amy's hideous.  Was she always this way or did the foundation's buy her off with money?  Did she just pretend to be independent so her buddy Leslie Cagan could rig the board of PACIFICA long enough to steal millions and hand them over to Amy Goodman in a deal -- grasp that, a struggling public radio station has to give Amy money year after year -- which didn't even result in PACIFICA owning the program in question.  

Amy's hideous.

These days, I think she always was.


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

 Thursday, September 3, 2020.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi lands in hot water, France's president pushes nuclear facilities in Iraq, and much more.


So we're going to have to talk the hair cut.  We avoided it here.  I didn't avoid it offline, we're all laughing at how cheap Nancy Pelosi is.  In the neighborhood, she has a reputation for watering down the drinks at her own gatherings -- not because she's afraid someone will be drunk and impaired on the road home but because she's so damn cheap.

Until she opened her mouth yesterday, that's all it was.  A laugh among those of us who know Nancy about how cheap she is.  Her whole episode could have been avoided if she'd offered to pay a little bit of money and the hairdresser would have come to her.  I don't go to some shop the day of an awards ceremony and get my hair done.  I pay the money and they come to me.  I keep waiting for Jon Peters to do a guest column on this for THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER -- about how even in the 70s, during the non-pandemic -- hairdressers would go to client's home for an additional fee.  

How cheap is Nancy?  The joke currently is that she's so cheap she's planning on being buried with her penny jar.  

And none of this would be mentioned here but she had to open her mouth and make it worse.

If you're late to the story, see:

  • Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
    Shouldn't Nancy Pelosi be contemplating her retirement at 80?
    3 hours ago
  • Ann's Mega Dub
    The face of a hypocrite
    3 hours ago
  • Trina's Kitchen
    I'm getting real tired of the entitled
    3 hours ago

  • Mikey Likes It!
    That bum Nancy Pelosi
    4 hours ago 


    • And a quick recap, Nancy can't deliver a needed stimulus package -- one that should have been in place before August 1st when benefits were slashed -- but she can make time for a hair cut.  

    Again, she could have avoided this if she didn't, as one friend put it, use SuperCuts.  She went in to a salon that was closed.  She went inside despite the fact that our mayor has said no to that.  She could have visited and had her hair done on the outside.  But she wanted to be inside, violation number one.  Violation number two, she's not wearing a mask.

    Had that been it, we wouldn't be talking about it today.  I would have worn a mask -- diabetes, back on chemo, and other factors make me a risk.  But if she's not going to wear one, that's on her.  

    What made it pertinent for us?  What makes it pertinent for a site that covers Iraq?

    She has said that she didn't know the law.  Any judge would reply, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."  She has said she was set up?  How?  She got caught.  No one forced her to do what she did.  She made the decisions to do what she did and she's responsible for her actions.  Only she refuses to take responsibility or accountability.

    Via CNN, here's her offending and laughable statement:

    I take responsibility for trusting the word of a neighborhood salon I've been to over the years many times, and when they said we're able to accommodate people, one person at a time, and that we can set up that time, I trusted that. As it turns out, it was a setup. So I take responsibility for falling for a setup.


    No, she does not take responsibility.  As many have already noted (many in the area), we all know what the rules are regarding haircuts.  This is not new, this did not pop up last week.  

    Nancy is in the wrong and she has no excuse.  I honestly thought that when she spoke on the manner, she'd say, "I made a mistake and I'm sorry about that.  I've certainly learned from this humiliating moment and it's might hope that others will be able to learn from it much easier than I have."

    I would've accepted that statement.  I wouldn't have applauded it because it doesn't merit applause -- it's the least, the very least, we should expect from a public servant.

    Instead, she wants to lie.  "I take responsibility."  But she doesn't.  According to her, her actions are not her fault.  According to her, they're the fault of someone else.  It's their fault because she "trusted" them.  And her talk of taking responsibility is hollow and a sham: "I take responsibility for falling for a setup."

    This is where we are now.  Adults think they are not responsible for their own actions and that they can blame others for what they do wrong.

    If you're not getting it, we've heard that garbage from one politician after another who voted for the Iraq War.  As is well established here, I do not like John Edwards (grabby hands).  But when John Edwards took responsibility for his vote, he did take responsibility.  (Elizabeth tried to muddy the waters for him but he took responsibility.)  

    The others?

    No.

    Joe Biden, 18 years after his vote for the war, still can't take responsibility.

    It's not his fault, he insists, the mistake he made was taking Bully Boy Bush's word.  

    No, that was foolish.  The mistake you made was voting for the Iraq War to begin with.  Saddam didn't have to disarm because he had no WMD.  

    We have let Joe and so many others get away with that.  We've looked the other way and pretended that it was okay for them to blame others for their own actions.

    It started with an indefensible vote and now it's made its way down to a hair cut.

    These things do not happen in isolation.

    Nancy will not take responsibility for her actions.

    She had attacked others for not wearing a mask.  She is a hypocrite.  She is also an adult -- and then some, she's 80-years-old.  And yet she refuses to take accountability.

    We all make mistakes -- every one of us.  That certainly includes me.

    If I know I've made mistakes (I probably make many that aren't even brought to my attention), I'll say so.  I'll say so and I'll take accountability and I'll move on.

    The alternative is too time consuming.  The nonsense of denying over and over and looking an idiot and liar is too time consuming.

    Admit your mistake, try the best you can to learn from it, and get the focus back on what matters.

    But Nancy thinks she's the Christ-child.  Nancy thinks she's infallible.  She refuses to own her actions, she refuses to take accountability.

    That is reflected among the political class with regards to Iraq.  

    And now, because they've gotten away with it on such a huge issue, Nancy wants to deploy the same tactics on a hair cut.

    The event itself, my opinion, was minor.  What made it major and why we have to discuss it here?  Because she refuses to take accountability.

    I don't give a damn if it was a 'set-up' or not.  If they laid a trap out for her?  Well she took the actions that made her the focus that she is now.

    It's on her and she needs to take accountability.

    Shame on anyone who tries to rescue her on this.

    She was in public.  She is a public servant.  She had hectored others for not wearing masks.  She thought she could get away with it despite cries of "the science, the science, the science!"  She needs to take accountability and her refusal to do so makes her not just look like a stupid hypocrite, it also makes her look very, very immature.

    You wouldn't let your child get away with this nonsense of avoiding accountability, you damn sure shouldn't let a professional politician -- one who's been in office for far too many years.

    Emmanuel Macron is another hideous person holding political office.  A neoliberal who cares nothing about the people he supposedly represents.  The protests and the attacks on the protesters in France have been one of the biggest stories the US press has ignored in the last 12 months.  Macron is a western neoliberal with many friends -- not just Barack.  


    Khaled Yacoub Oweis (THE NATIONAL) reports:

    French President Emmanuel Macron in Baghdad on Wednesday discussed solving Iraq's power cuts with nuclear energy and expressed support for Prime Minister Mustafa Al Kadhimi's push to contain armed groups outside the control of the state.

    The French leader is the first western head of state to travel to the country since the new Iraqi government took office four months ago.

    Mr Al Kadhimi said he discussed with Mr Macron "a future project" to use nuclear energy to produce electricity and solve decades-long power shortages.

    He said the nuclear project would be under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and would create jobs.


    There is so much wrong and appalling with that.  First off, the Iraq War was started on lies.  One of the lies was, per Bully Boy Bush, 'we have recently learned that Saddam sought yellow cake uranium from Africa.'  Well if Macron gets his way, the next Saddam the US creates will have access to basic materials in Iraq and won't have to seek it from outside.  

    Second, nuclear energy is not safe.  It does not become safe.  There is always the chance that an accident can happen or, for that matter, a terrorist attack which turns a nuclear plant into a nuclear bomb.  We don't need more nuclear facilities.  (Yes, I know some alleged 'greens' back nuclear energy -- well there's always at least one whore in every group.)  

    Third the waste has to be disposed of.  Are we going to send it into space?  Are you going to let your neighborhood be a dumping ground?  Where's it going to go?

    Macron works for the nuclear industry -- and anyone else willing to pay him off.  He does not work for the people of France and how dare he go to Iraq, a country that is already suffering, and try to pimp nuclear energy.  Shame on him.  I didn't think he could get anymore disgusting but I was wrong.

    Karwan Faidhi Dri covers the visit for RUDAW.


    In other news, Caleb Weiss and Joe Truzman (LONG WAR JOURNAL) report on talk of a new group in Iraq resorting to violence:

    Guardians of the Blood, a purported new militant group claiming to be a part of the so-called Islamic Resistance in Iraq recently published a statement and video claiming responsibility for two Aug. 24 attacks allegedly against a ‘CIA security convoy’ and an ‘American convoy.’

    “The heroic mujahideen on the evening of Monday 08/24/2020 unleashed their anger and fire for their revenge on an American military convoy retreating from Camp Taji towards Ain al-Assad base,” Guardians of the Blood said in the statement.

    The video, posted on Aug. 30, showed a convoy of large trucks traveling on a busy road. After a few moments, an explosion occurred beside one of the vehicles. The scene then repeated itself before ending.

    Additionally, the group said its men were responsible for targeting a “vehicle belonging to American intelligence” between Erbil and Mosul. 



    AP's James LaPorta Tweets:

    #BREAKING Scoop:
    @USArmy
    Ranger Sgt. Maj. Thomas Payne of
    @USASOCNews
    will receive the Medal of Honor for a 2015 Iraq raid that rescued 70 prisoners set to be executed by ISIS. President
    @realDonaldTrump
    will present the award to Payne on 9/11. apnews.com/0fd2ac443f7efa
    Image
    1:14 PM · Sep 2, 2020


    You can find LaPorta's report here.

    Turning to the topic of political persecution, Vijay Prashad (BNN) reports on political prisoner Julian Assange:


    On September 7, 2020, Julian Assange will leave his cell in Belmarsh Prison in London and attend a hearing that will determine his fate. After a long period of isolation, he was finally able to meet his partner-Stella Moris-and see their two sons-Gabriel (age three) and Max (age one)-last week. After the visit, Moris said that he looked to be in "a lot of pain."

    The hearing that Assange will face has nothing to do with the reasons for his arrest from the embassy of Ecuador in London on April 11, 2019. He was arrested that day for his failure to surrender in 2012 to the British authorities, who would have extradited him to Sweden; in Sweden, at that time, there were accusations of sexual offenses against Assange that were dropped in November 2019. Indeed, after the Swedish authorities decided not to pursue Assange, he should have been released by the UK government. But he was not.

    The true reason for the arrest was never the charge in Sweden; it was the desire of the U.S. government to have him brought to the United States on a range of charges. On April 11, 2019, the UK Home Office spokesperson said, "We can confirm that Julian Assange was arrested in relation to a provisional extradition request from the United States of America. He is accused in the United States of America of computer-related offenses."


    New content at THIRD:



    The following sites updated:









    Posted by at

    Music thoughts (and criticism for Tori Amos)

     Please go read Elaine's "Joni Mitchell's many classic albums" which went up a little while ago.  I really enjoyed it.  And let me note these music posts in the community in the last days:

    "Song of the '00s," "What's your favorite Adele song?," "Mellow Gold?," "The Mamas and the Papas' PEOPLE LIKE US," "Diana Ross," "Kim Carnes and Barbra Streisand," "Bright Eyes," "2 Mamas and the Papas videos," "Cass and Michelle -- the coolest of Mamas," "Music: Dua Lipa. Missy Elliott, Madonna, Bright Eyes and Cher," "Rod Stewart's best album and other things," "Usher" and "Haim"


    I'm lazy (no!!!) so I grabbed that from THIRD's "Highlights" which just went up.  All the content's up now including Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Who gets represented?"  -- heck, let me note the whole edition:


    Again, it just went up.  Back to the music posts, Mike, Betty, Ruth, Elaine and Marcia all covered music -- in fact, Marcia had another post that's not noted "Julian Assange and Toni Braxton" -- that's listed in news on "Highlights" because of the Julian Assange aspect.  But Marcia's covering Toni Braxton's new album.

    I wish we lived in a world where we could just listen to music all the time, talk about music all the time, write about music all the time.

    I wish we had politicians that knew their jobs and did their jobs, for example, so we could just focus on music.  But we don't live in that world.  We live in a world where we're required to provide constant oversight not just because that's how democracy works but also because we have so many crooks in office.

    I really think we've crossed a point.  I think everything either falls apart shortly or we get some sort of reform.  It can't go on the way it is, with politicians ripping off the people to give money away to the rich.  It's so out of control and so far from what the country is supposed to stand for.

    I'm getting to the point, also, where I don't have time for some musical artists because they're part of a denial.

    I'll give one example.

    Tori Amos.  She used to be one of my favorite artists.

    I was fine with disagreeing with her politically on her last album.  I praised -- Sorry, her 2014 album.  That was the last one that was really great.  NATIVE INVADERS is a good album but not a great one.  But on her UNREPENTANT album, she's really slamming Ed Snowden in a track and basically defending the NSA.  I didn't trash her for it.  But I thought she'd realize the issues and come to her senses at some point.  Instead, she's just another poser these days.

    I don't need your bumper sticker of how you hate Donald Trump, Tori.  I need you to grasp how much trouble the people are in -- not because Donald's in office or Barack's in office, but because of how rigged the system is.

    I've been feeling that way about Tori since her book was announced.  I read the book.  I hated the book.  I kept it to myself. 

    I'm tired of keeping it to myself.

    Tori needs to get back to the piano.  And if she wants to be 'political' then she needs to focus on real issues -- that's war, that's climate, that's the poverty that only increases worldwide.

    John Lennon focused on real issues.  Why can't others?

    I used to listen to Tori twice a week minimum.

    I haven't listened to her since March.


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

     Wednesday, September 2, 2020.  No, a withdrawal of US troops is not taking place (it's a drawdown) and a few of the other lies that have been pimped about the Iraq War in the last 17 years.


    Are US troops coming in or going out of Iraq?  That's the forever question no matter who's occupying the White House.  Bully Boy Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump -- no one has delivered a withdrawal.  Barack did a drawdown, not a withdrawal.  The Pentagon refused to call it a withdrawal because they do know the difference.  A withdrawal means all US troops leave (with the exception of Marine staff covering the Embassy).  The late Senator Kay Hagan knew what was what in said so in open hearing.  From the November 16, 2011 snapshot:

    Senator Kay Hagan:  But I wanted to talk about our Special Operations Forces.  And, as you know, our Special Operations Forces have engaged with their Iraqi counter-parts in counter-terrorism and in training and advising activities.  And what will things look like in Iraq from a Special Operations Forces stand point going forward.  And what type of engagement would our Special Operation Forces have in Iraq?
     
    General Martin Dempsy: Yes, senator the size of the Iraqi operating Special Forces is about 4,500. They're organized into a counter-terrorism section commanded by an Iraqi general by the name of Kanani.  We partnered with him at the head quarters level and will remain so. We're in discussions with Iarq about training -- trainers -- that would stay inside the wire of their places where this counter-terrorism force is located, not go with them on missions but rather train them to continue to go on missions.  And-and as I mentioned earlier, the gap is actually in their ability to kind of identify the network and target it.  We call it the find-fix-finish-asses-and-exploit cycle. They're very capable of fixing and finishing, not so capable as yet in finding, assessing and exploiting so that you continue to keep pressure on a network. But I will tell you, they are extraordinaryly competent individual soldiers. What we've got to do is keep raising the bar with them on their ability to do things at eschelons above tactics.
     
    Senator Kay Hagan: Well with the drawdown taking place in less than two months, what is your outlook for the ability to continue this training process to enable them to continue to do this on their own?
     
    General Martin Dempsey: Well they will be limited. They don't have the airlift to deliver them to the target that we might have been able to provide. They don't have the ISR target to keep persistant surveillance over the top of the target. So they'll be limited to ground movement and they'll be limited to human intelligence and we'll keep -- But part of the Office of Security Cooperation provides the trainers to keep the training to develop those other areas, but we're some time off in reaching that point.
     
    Senator Kay Hagan: We'll, as we continue this drawdown of our military personnel from Iraq, I really remain concerned about their force protection -- the individuals that will be remaining in Iraq.  So what are the remaining challenges for our military personnel in Iraq in terms of managing their vulnerabilities, managing their exposures during the drawdown?
     
    General Martin Dempsey:  Senator, are you talking about getting from 24,000, the existing force now and having it retrograde through Kuwait?
     
    Senator Kay Hagan:  The ones that will remain over there.
     
    General Martin Dempsey: The ones that will remain --
     
    Senator Kay Hagan: Their protection.
     
    General Martin Dempsey: Yes, Senator. Well, they will have -- First and foremost, we've got ten Offices of Security Cooperation in Iraq bases.  And their activities will largely be conducted on these bases because their activities are fundamentally oriented on delivering the foreign military sales.  So F-16s get delivered, there's a team there to help  new equipment training and-and helping Iraq understand how to use them to establish air sovereignty.  Or there's a 141 M1 Tanks right now, generally located at a tank gunnery range in Besmaya, east of Baghdad and the team supporting that training stays on Besmaya so this isn't about us moving around the country very much at all.  This is about our exposure being limited to 10 enduring, if you will, Offices of Security Cooperation base camps.  And doing the job of educating and training and equipping on those ten bases.  Host nation is always responsible for the outer parameter.  We'll have contracted security  on the inner parameter. And these young men and women will always have responsibility for their own self-defense.
     
    Senator Kay Hagan: So we'll have contracted security on the inner-parameter?
     

    General Martin Dempsey: That's right.  

    No, they didn't all leave.  It wasn't a withdrawal, it was a drawdown -- this was a point that was even made directly in the hearing when Leon Panetta stated, "There aren't zero troops that are going to be there."

    But, hey, we've only told the truth here all along while so many Americans have lied repeatedly.  They lied about the SOFA -- we didn't.  We posted on Thanksgiving 2008 because the White House released it that day.  They released it, I read over it and offered an analysis in 30 minutes and got it posted here.  And no one in the press or bloggers agreed with me.  But that's okay, I know contract law and I was right.  Right about the drawdown too.

    Then in the fall of 2012, not even 12 months after that hearing, Barack began sending more US forces back in to join those that were already present.  Tim Arango revealed that in a NEW YORK TIMES article.  Not one about Iraq, mind you.  Jill The Whote Abramson ruled that out.  For weeks, Arango tried to get that in print.  He had a military commander on the record for the fact that Barack has sent troops back in.  Jill wouldn't allow it to go into print.

    It was fall 2012 and it could 'hurt' Barack's chances of re-election.  Finally, she allowed a single paragraph of that news to appear in the middle of a long article on Syria.  


    It's that sort of bulls**t that got her fired as editor of the paper.  

    Some people are insisting that Donald Trump's carrying out a withdrawal.  If Donald did that, I'd be the first to praise him.  That would be an accomplishment that neither Bully Boy Bush nor Barack Obama had managed to pull off.  I'd praise him for it.

    But withdrawing a few troops is not a withdrawal.

    We knew it in 2011, we know it today.  We didn't whore in 2011 and we're not going to whore today.

    For a withdrawal to take place, the amount of US troops in Iraq would have to be zero (again, with the exception of the Marines stationed at the Embassy -- Marines are stationed at all US embassies around the world).
     

     Donald's not talking zero.  And we've got other statements as well.  EDU MATRIX notes the US government's latest pronouncement/threat.



    ANADOLU AGENCY covers the same story:

                              

    The US ambassador to Iraq said Monday that his embassy would push Washington to review its policies in the country due to frequent attacks on American diplomatic missions there, media reports said.

    Referring to a rocket attack on Sunday near the Baghdad airport – the third attack on sites hosting US troops and personnel – Matthew Tuller said: "There are extremist voices that prompt the targeting of the US' military and diplomatic presence, and this does not represent the Iraqi people or the interest of Iraq."

    "If such attacks continue then it will prompt a review of many issues, not between Iraq and America, rather, between Iraq and the international coalition in general," he added, according to UAE-based news website The National.


    Should Donald surprise us all and do an actual withdrawal, I will gladly give him credit for that and I will even applaud him for that.  But it would have to be an actual withdrawal.  That's not what's taking place currently.  A reduction is not a withdrawal.

    I need to correct the above.  One journalist did tell the truth in 2011.  That was Ted Koppel.  He appeared on NBC's then-new Friday news magazine ROCK CENTER WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS and on NPR's TALK OF THE NATION to discuss reality.  And?  Both shows were quickly gone.  That happens a lot, by the way.  Tell the truth and you can disappear very easily.  Telling the truth about the evil Bush family turned Houston, Texas into a one-paper town, by the way.  Telling the truth about the Iraq War in the lead up and after the start of the war ended KNIGHT RIDDER.  For years, we used to have to repeatedly point out here that despite bloggers and columnists lying and giving MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS credit for the Iraq coverage, MCCLATCHY didn't do s**t.  They lied like everybody else.  Their papers were around in 2002 and they lied.  MCCLATCHY purchased KNIGHT RIDDER.  That deal was announced in March of 2006.  Three years after the war started.  But for years and years, we had to put with various fools and some liars (such as a certain press 'expert' at THE NATION) giving MCCLATCHY credit for what they did not do.  MCCLATCHY sold the war and did so without questioning one official statement -- they were no better than THE WASHINGTON POST or THE NEW YORK TIMES.  They also began burying Iraq as soon as they took over.  The last real story of major significance on Iraq was published the day before the company was taken over by MCCLATCHY.  That story was written by Nancy A. Youssef and revealed that, despite claims to the contrary by the US government, a number of civilians killed in US actions in Iraq was being kept.  

    It was a major story that got no amplification.  In fact, we're the ones who had to make "Iraq expert" Phyllis Bennis aware of the report when, several months later, she appeared on COUNTERSPIN insisting that the US government should be keeping a count of civilians killed in US actions.  

    Since Donald's announcement, a lot of e-mails have poured into the public account insisting that we're not being fair to Donald and that I'm trying to be like every other site and just attack, attack, attack.

    I don't like Donald.  That predates his presidency.  But I have not let that effect what we do here.  We didn't use dislike for Donald to spread the lie of Russia-gate.  And, again, if withdrew all US troops, I would give him credit and giving him credit would include, yes, praising him for that decision.  As for the 15 Shirley counted who insist that I haven't even noted Donald's announcement at this site, Saturday's "US forces being cut in Iraq (not a withdrawal, sadly) and the UN calls out the attacks on Iraqi civilians" must have been missed because we covered it in that.

    George Szamuely, at RT, rightly notes that Donald Trump angers the foreign policy 'elite' in the US by not being as war crazed as they expect a president to be:

              
    One reason for the extraordinary hostility of the foreign policy insiders’ brigade toward President Trump is that he has not wasted his time conjuring up new missions to justify NATO’s continued existence.

    Instead, he has promised to withdraw 12,000 US troops from Germany and, to add insult to injury, he has demanded that NATO member states increase their financial contributions toward the upkeep of the military alliance ostensibly there to “protect” them. 

    This is sacrilege to a foreign policy elite that have spent the last 70 years worshipping at the altar of NATO. 

    “US troops aren’t stationed around the world as traffic cops or welfare caseworkers—they’re restraining the expansionary aims of the world's worst regimes, chiefly China and Russia,” Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., fumed. 

    Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice expressed alarm about the “continued erosion of confidence in our leadership within NATO, and more efforts that call into question our commitment, and more signals to the authoritarians within NATO and Russia itself that this whole institution is vulnerable.” 

    Trump, according to Nicholas Burns, former US ambassador to NATO and current adviser to Joe Biden, has cast America’s military allies primarily as a drain on the US Treasury, and he has aggressively criticized Washington’s true friends in Europe—democratic leaders such as France’s President Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel—even as he treats Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un, and other ‘authoritarians’ around the world with unusual tact. 

    Seventy former Republican national security officials recently issued a statement accusing Trump of having “disgraced America’s global reputation and undermined our nation’s moral and diplomatic influence.” And—horror of horrors!—Trump “has called NATO ‘obsolete.’ ”

    [. . .]

    Next came Iraq. Despite the vocal opposition of France and Germany to the 2003 invasion, NATO, in no time got involved. In 2004, it established NATO Training Mission-Iraq, the aim of which was supposedly to “assist in the development of Iraqi security forces training structures and institutions so that Iraq can build an effective and sustainable capability that addresses the needs of the nation.” One of its tasks was to train the Iraqi police. However, as WikiLeaks’ Iraq War Logs disclosure revealed, Iraq’s finely-trained police conducted horrific torture on detainees. Neither NATO’s Afghanistan nor its Iraqi mission covered itself in glory.

    With the Democrats returning to power in Washington in 2009, NATO was back in the “humanitarian intervention” business. Its bombing of Libya in 2011 destroyed government, law and public order, institutions that before the intervention had ensured that the people of Libya were able to go about their daily lives free from the fear of death, not to mention the spectacle of slave markets. 

    The “humanitarian intervention” in Libya having ended in debacle and war crimes (including the execution of Muammar Gaddafi) in which NATO was clearly involved, it was back to the old Cold War mission of “containment.” 

    Following the February 21, 2014, coup in Kiev and the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia, NATO’s new mission was very much like its old. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen promised that: “We will have more planes in the air, more ships on the water, and more readiness on the land. For example, air policing aircraft will fly more sorties over the Baltic region. Allied ships will deploy to the Baltic Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean and elsewhere.”


    Joe Biden will give them the wars they want if we are to judge by his hideous record.  We'll come back to Joe Biden but, right now, let's note this from Joe Snell's report for AL-MONITOR:

    A new investigation committee reporting directly to Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi will manage major corruption cases and “exceptional crimes,” according to Kadhimi in a speech on Sunday.

    The announcement follows a string of attacks in August on anti-corruption activists in Basra, which led to the sacking of the city’s police chief and security officials.

    “The fugitive weapons, criminal gangs, assassinations and kidnappings are a dagger in the heart of the homeland and in the heart of every Iraqi,” Kadhimi said.



    Corruption continues in Iraq.

    And I'm confused so help me out here.

    Joe Biden says that, as Vice President, he did not have an official fired in Ukraine because they were investigating his son Hunter Biden and the sweet-heart deal that Hunter got despite his biggest qualifications on his resume being:

    1) Will sleep with his own brother's widow
    2) Can impregnate stripper and spend years denying it until DNA tests reveal Hunter to be a liar.
    3) Crack addict who was kicked out of the reserves for his drug use
    4) Only got in the reserves because he was Joe's son -- he didn't do basic, he got a short cut in and couldn't even last two months before he failed a drug test.

    But Joe says the official that he bragged publicly about getting fired was ousted for corruption.

    So Joe cares about corruption?

    Here's the confusing part: Iraq.

    Hillary wasn't in charge of Iraq.  She was Secretary of State.  She had a close relationship with her Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari (who was later forced out of office by the Parliament on corruption charges).  Hillary Clinton couldn't be the point-person on Iraq because, in 2008, in an open hearing, she rightly called Nouri al-Maliki a "thug."  He was a thug.  She was correct and too many others who would go into Barack's administration in 2009 -- including Joe -- were deeply stupid when it came to the nature of Nouri.  

    So Barack couldn't put Hillary in charge of Iraq.  His point-person?

    Joe Biden.

    Joe's so concerned about corruption, supposedly, that he threatens to pull funding to Ukraine over it.

    How does that make sense?

    It doesn't.

    Joe's aware of Iraq's corruption.  He chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  
     

    Oh, look, here's a transcription of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 2007 on . . . corruption in Iraq.

     

    And in 2012, he was Vice President (January 2009 through January 2017).  That's when the minority members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued "Iraq Report: Political Fragmentation And Corruption Stymie Economic Growth And Political Progress."  As Vice President, tasked by Barack with overseeing Iraq, was Joe unaware of corruption in Iraq?  He didn't do a damn thing to prevent or limit it.  



    Joe's concern for corruption doesn't ring true.  


    In other news, ALJAZEERA reports

    French President Emmanuel Macron has landed in Baghdad on his first official trip to Iraq, where he hopes to help the country reassert its "sovereignty" after years of conflict.

    Macron is the first head of state to visit the Iraqi capital since Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, Iraq's former intelligence chief, formed a new government in May.

    The French leader is expected to meet al-Kadhimi and President Barham Salih at the presidential palace during his day-long trip on Wednesday, which comes amid a severe economic crisis and coronavirus pandemic that has put a huge strain on Iraqi economy and politics.


    We'll note this Tweet:

    Iraqi
    Flag of Iraq
     President Saleh and French President Macron shaking elbows in #Baghdad today #Iraq #France
    Image
    7:30 AM · Sep 2, 2020


    Taking a page from American rulers, Macron had to sneak into the country.  AFP notes, "The trip was not publicly announced until Tuesday evening, with officials in Paris and Baghdad keeping a tight lid on arrangements for security reasons."

    The following sites updated:



    Posted by at

    Tuesday, September 01, 2020

    Look who's falling off the top 200 selling albums of the week

     I told you when the new album from 'The Chicks' came out that we were all sick of Natalie Maines, that she was tired and trash.  

    Go look at BILLBOARD's top 200 selling albums if you didn't believe me.  Albums that sold better than the new one from the Dixie Chicks?


    ABBEY ROAD by the Beatles.  NEVER MIND by Nirvana.  Bon Jovi's GREATEST HITS.  Just about everything in fact.  The album's sixth week on the charts and?  It's fallen to 178.

    I feel sorry for the other two but Natalie is hideous.  And her attempts to smear her ex-husband are disgusting. 

    She's a fat little troll.  And she couldn't read the room.  If she had read the room, she would've stayed out of a recording studio.

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

     Tuesday, September 1, 2020.  Violence continues in Iraq, whoring continues in the US, the American people want US forces out of Iraq (and Afghanistan) but all 'independent' media (Panhandle Media) can offer is whoring and nonsense.


    XINHAU reports a northern Iraq car bombing has left 1 woman dead and three members of Iraq's security forces injured.  The war continues.  Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) reports on the death toll for the previous month:


    During August, 102 people were killed, and 134 more were wounded. The number of deaths dramatically decreased compared to July, in which 230 people were killed. However, the number of wounded was nearly equal to July’s 138 wounded.


    The never-ending war continues to claim victims.  Rebecca Kheel (THE HILL) notes a new poll:


    About three-quarters of U.S. adults say they support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan in a new poll commissioned by the libertarian Charles Koch Institute obtained exclusively by The Hill.

    In the poll, which surveyed 2,000 U.S. adults, 44 percent said they strongly support bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq and 30 percent said they somewhat support doing so.

    For Afghanistan, 46 percent said they strongly support bringing troops home and 30 percent said they somewhat support it.

    [. . .]

    In Iraq, U.S. officials are negotiating future troops levels with the Iraqi government after Iraqi lawmakers called for a withdrawal. Iraqi opposition to the U.S. presence in their country grew at the beginning of the year after the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Iraqi soil.

    There are about 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq helping local forces fight the remnants of ISIS.



    Meanwhile, there is the sewer that is the American media.  You honestly shouldn't visit those crap sites until after the election.  All they're doing is whoring right now.  Every day, instead of telling you what's going on, they tell you what to think and how to vote.  They call themselves independent media and alternative media but all they're trying to do is manipulate opinion and, yes, manufacture consent.


    Look at COUNTERPUNCH where it's all whore all the time.  Today's crew includes David Lindorff who wants seniors to think before they vote.  Because?  Apparently, without Lindorff telling them to, they wouldn't think?  The smugness is appalling.


    By the way, David, do you regret your ridiculous claim that Barack Obama would deliver a better country because, your words, he was a Black man who had done drugs?


    Do you remember when you wrote that idiotic statement?  We do.  You wrote to our own community member Martha (who, with Shirley, does our year-end look at books each year).  And we wrote about it at THIRD and quoted you.  And you looked like an idiot in 2008 and you don't look any better today.


    You used to write about topics that actually mattered.  Then IN THESE TIMES ran the retraction on your work.  We supported you and defended you here.  But your work since has been the equivalent of a Sunday chat & chew appearance -- surface and superficial.


    I scanned his idiotic article which went on and on, looking for something about Joe and Social Security.  I found nothing.  But Joe's got a long and public record of favoring cuts to Social Security.  Somehow Dave missed all that.


    This is from Ryan Grim's "Fact Check: Joe Biden Has Advocated Cutting Social Security for 40 Years" (THE INTERCEPT):


    As early as 1984 and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget. Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders highlighted Biden’s record on Social Security in prosecuting the case that Biden isn’t the most electable candidate. The issue could be raised again in Tuesday night’s debate.

    After a Sanders campaign newsletter continued the attack on Biden’s Social Security record, the Biden campaign complained to fact-checkers at Politifact that his comments were being taken out of context. Placed in context, however, Biden’s record on Social Security is far worse than one offhand remark. Indeed, Biden has been advocating for cuts to Social Security for roughly 40 years.

    And after a Republican wave swept Congress in 1994, Biden’s support for cutting Social Security, and his general advocacy for budget austerity, made him a leading combatant in the centrist-wing battle against the party’s retreating liberals in the 1980s and ’90s.

    “When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he told the Senate in 1995. “I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.” (A freeze would have reduced the amount that would be paid out, cutting the program’s benefit.)



    As early as 1984 and as recently as 2018?  Dave, I don't think it's senior that aren't thinking before they vote, I think it's you that's not thinking before you type.  Oh well, maybe you can market Kamala Harris as v.p.?  Insisting that as a 'Black' woman who has done drugs she will transform the country?  


    Sadly, Dave's the brightest light at COUNTERPUNCH today.


    Let's note Jimmy Dore.




    That's Jimmy speaking truths.  He spoke them at a fake-ass convention.

    Sorry, that's what it was.  When Cornel West promotes it by telling people, as he did on RISING last week, that they need to vote for Joe Biden?  That's defeating it before it starts.

    And let's get honest about Cornel because I'm really at my breaking point here.

    I like Tavis Smiley.  I may be the only person in the country who still thinks he may be innocent.  I don't buy claims just because PBS asserts them.  If women have been harmed, I would assume they would have stepped forward with their stories.  

    Tavis may well be innocent.

    It bothers me that he's assumed guilty.  But if that's the position you're going to take, why aren't you demanding comments from Cornel?  There's not a week that goes by that he's not giving at least two interviews.

    Cornel and Tavis were tight.  They hosted joint-events, they gave joint-interviews, they traveled together on and on and on.  This wasn't for one week or one month or one year.  This was for years and years.

    Maybe people don't know that because of their own racism that allows them to ignore the work of African-Americans?  

    Tavis is not perfect and I have never claimed he is.  But I do like Tavis and I've not seen anything to alter that opinion -- again PBS whispers don't make a case for me even if the media is happy to run with it.  

    But, again, that's where I stand.

    If you're standing somewhere else, good for you.  But why are you not asking that Cornel respond in some way?  

    Instead, he's put up at a convention about where the country needs to go.  

    If you think Tavis is guilty, I don't know why you put his roll dog onstage to speak.

    I don't think Cornel needs to speak for any organization urging voters to make demands for their vote if he's going to use his fame to go around telling people to vote for Biden.  That's opposed to everything Jimmy Dore was saying.  It's also idiotic because no one's going to work for your vote once you tell them they have it.

    Once you tell them that they have your vote, they're going to move to the demographic that they are shaky with and work to get their vote.

    That goes a long ways towards explaining why the DNC and Joe Biden are working overtime to court Republicans.  (See Luke Savage's piece at JACOBIN for more on that topic.)

    Cornel's very good at creating word gumbo.  But in terms of strategy and analysis, I'm just not seeing it and it was his actions and words, more than anyone else, that resulted in our ignoring that 'convention' over the weekend.  Why promote a Biden rally?

    That's all it was.  Yes, Jimmy Dore said some good things and I'm sure Marianne Williamson did as well.  But when others involved saw their role as sheep dogs to herd people over to Joe?  That's not only sad, it's also deceitful.


    We need a better world.  I don't see Cornel working for that when he undermines the so-called people's convention before it even starts.  

    We need a better world and, to envision that, we need to know what's possible.  


    At a time when so much 'alternative' media wastes their time and our time trying to tell us who to vote for, some people deal with actual issues.



    That's an important conversation.  Richard D. Wolff's opening about Norway, all by itself, is an important conversation.  When we can talk about how efforts are made in Norway to twist the will and needs of the people, we can grasp how we are connected and we can see that things don't just happen.  

    While corporations ensure that the American people do not have their needs met, the 'alternative' media focuses on electing personalities instead of educating the public.

    It wasn't independent media in the US that got the word out on Medicare for All, it was nurses.  They worked tirelessly for years on this effort.  

    If our 'independent,' 'alternative' and useless beggar media (THE NATION, IN THESE TIMES, COUNTERPUNCH, THE PROGRESSIVE, etc) would do their job, the people would be aware of what was possible, what was at stake and what we could have.

    Instead, they turn themselves over to political parties and whore for them.  





    The following sites updated:





    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)