Thursday, September 17, 2020

Diana Rigg

 In "Diana Rigg," Ruth noted the passing of Diana Rigg and I meant to come back to that myself but kept forgetting.  Paul Bond has a piece about Diana up at WSWS:

Diana Rigg, who died September 10 aged 82, was a fine classical actress who struggled against over-identification with her popular successes. Like Honor Blackman before her, Rigg’s recognition for the television series The Avengers and an appearance as a “[James] Bond girl” in On Her Majestys Secret Service (Peter Hunt, 1969) threatened to overwhelm her other achievements.

Rigg resisted this. She refused to sign Avengers photographs that were sent to her, saying that “it would have been death to have been labelled forever by that one TV series.” Her extensive, significant theatre work was a better response, but those glamorous 1960s successes were built on genuine qualities. Her sexy, knowing and self-assured performance in The Avengers remains a joy.

Rigg ended up successfully negotiating the transition back and forth between stage and television. She regretted not making more films, but was keen to keep exploring new ground, explaining that “being doomed to the classics is as limiting as doing a series for the rest of your life.”


I loved Diana Rigg as a kid.  I'm remembering The Avengers being on Saturday nights.  Maybe, after ABC aired it, the show went to my local PBS in San Francisco?  I remember watching THE PRISONER -- another British show -- on my PBS station. 

I was a big fan of her Emma Peel character.  In fact, I used to get the series on DVD from NETFLIX when they were just a DVD business.  And I'd only get the Diana Rigg episodes.  I've seen the others but never been interested.  (The only exception would be THE NEW AVENGERS which I really enjoyed -- Joanna Lumley was in that.)  

When TUBI first started offering streaming, I'd go there and stream episodes of THE AVENGERS with Diana Rigg in them.  

After THE AVENGERS?  Diana probably registered the most to me when I was stoned (I was not the only adult stoned but I won't tell on others) and with my oldest niece and two adult family members at the movies seeing THE GREAT MUPPET CAPER.  Miss Piggy wants to be a model and Diana Rigg hires her . . . as a receptionist.  Diana was a good sport -- and that's the highest compliment for any person appearing opposite the Muppets.  

She was a strong actress who was always believable (see THE HOSPITAL for some of her finest film work, see REBECCA for some of her finest TV work).

Ruth got an e-mail after her post went up from someone carping 'Diana Rigg wasn't a feminist!' That was the whole point of the e-mail.  I say?  So what?  

I'm a feminist.  Every one doesn't have to be one.  Was Diana Rigg a doormat? Nope.  She was a strong woman and she was said to be supportive of other actresses.  Sounds good to me.

She was entitled to be whomever she wanted.  I think she wanted to be a great actress and I think she met that goal.

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

 Wednesday, September 16, 2020.  Joe Biden dithers in public confusing Iraq and Iran, real issues are ignored by the press and much more.


Violence continues in Iraq.  When the targets appear to be western, the violence gets a bit of press attention.  AFP reports this morning:

Three separate attacks in 24 hours have targeted Western diplomatic or military installations in Iraq, security and diplomatic sources said on Tuesday, hinting at a new escalation between authorities and rogue groups.

While no casualties were reported in any of the attacks, Iraqi officials told AFP they see the spike as an indirect way to pressure the government as it tries to fight graft. On Tuesday morning, an improvised explosive device targeted a British embassy vehicle returning from Baghdad airport, a diplomatic source told AFP.


ASIA NEWS adds:

Security sources report that there were no victims or injuries in the attacks, but the attacks confirm a growing climate of "pressure" on the executive. In recent days, the Chaldean patriarch himself had emphasized to AsiaNews the unity of purpose in this all-out fight against groups and militias that foment ill-dealings and divisions.

Yesterday morning a rudimentary device exploded as a British embassy vehicle passed, returning from the airport. The attack, the first in over 10 years against a British vehicle, took place near the Green Zone, the high-security area in the center of the capital that hosts diplomatic offices, international institutions and government offices.

During the night, two Katyusha rockets were launched against the American embassy, ​​also within the Green Zone. The C-RAM missile defense system installed at the mission at the beginning of the year foiled the threat. The device warns of the possible arrival of ammunition or explosives and is activated, causing them to explode in the air hitting them with thousands of bullets per minute.

In the early hours of September 14 two explosive devices hit a convoy of US vehicles and supplies.


AHBUL BAYT NEWS AGENCY notes that "the British Embassy in Baghdad confirmed" the attack on the British vehicle.  Again when western interests are the target it's 'news.'  When the Iraqi people die daily, it's just a shrug -- if that -- from the corporate news industry.  

  

War Hawk Joe Biden is senile.  He's not fit to be president based on his record but, more to the point, he's not fit to be president based on his brain.  He never knows where he is, who his wife is (confusing her with his sister), what he's doing, he's senile and unfit for office.  That's bad.  But here he is speaking on the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq or, as he puts it, Iran.



All these years later and he doesn't grasp the difference?  No, it's that he's senile.  He's lost it and he's not fit to govern.  He's honestly not fit to drive and a caring family would confront him and take away his keys.  But he's also not fit to be in the Oval Office.  



Weeks out from a presidential election and the press can spend forever jabbering away about polls but not about actual issues.  Doug Bandow (ANTIWAR.COM) notes the silence on the issue of war:

Even worse is the Middle East. The region no longer matters much to Washington, given rising American energy production and falling global demand. Israel is a regional, nuclear-armed superpower that can defend itself. The region long has suffered through dictatorship and chaos, neither of which warrant American military involvement. Why should Americans die on behalf of the Saudi royal family? The Saudis hire foreigners to do the country’s dirty work; they treat American servicemen and women as their personal bodyguards, paid for through weapons purchases. Alas, Trump has obliged, sacrificing US interests to royal desires.

Trump and Biden should be asked directly: why are Americans expected to die to protect the licentious, irresponsible Saudi royals who slice and dice their critics? Egypt’s dictatorial regime, which has jailed tens of thousands and continues to persecute Christians and other religious minorities? The Emirati royal family, whose only virtue is being less oppressive than the Saudis? Should Washington risk war to sort out the Syrian and Libyan civil wars which, though tragic, do not impact American security? Why do legislators rush en masse to declare support for Israel when its primary threat lies within, the continued occupation over millions of disenfranchised Palestinians who live under a system of militarized Apartheid?

War is terrible. Sometimes necessary, but rarely so. Most US conflicts are hard if not impossible to justify. Brutal aggressions against Mexico, Spain, and the Philippines. Senseless involvement in World War I. A last gasp attempt to rescue French colonialism in Vietnam. A gaggle of nation-building disasters in the 1990s and 2000s. Even the better cases, such as World War II, in which Imperial Japan attacked America, have important what if’s: what if the US has not imposed an oil embargo on Tokyo, pushing that country toward its attack on Pearl Harbor?

With war so frequent and frequently unjustified, Americans should start holding their presidents accountable. True, the original Constitution required Congress to decide on war, but Washington now operates on very different principles, by which the president does whatever he or she wants on foreign policy, leaving legislators to applaud or carp, depending on how the conflict turns out. Hence the necessity of asking candidates when they are prepared to take Americans into war.


The US press ignores the wars.  When they do stumble upon them, it's to speak of the past and not to note the tragedies that are ongoing.  Iraq War veteran Frederic Wehrey shares his experience early on in the war at THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS:


There at the Baghdad hospital, I joined an FBI agent in questioning the bedridden al-Ani about his time in the Czech Republic. A diminutive man with a grizzled face creased by bouts of pain, he epitomized the type of drab regime functionary I’d come to know in Iraq all too well. He answered our questions straightforwardly. In the end, the hours-long session provided no evidence about the Prague meeting to contradict the debunking that had already appeared in the press. Al-Ani had never met Mohamed Atta or even heard of him until he saw news reports after September 11. Nor was he himself even in Prague on the day of the alleged encounter; he was out of town, seventy miles away. 

Even more disturbing than this non-revelation, though, was his account of his capture that summer by US special operations forces and the reason for his hospitalization. Snatching him from his Baghdad home at night, US soldiers had bound his wrists, covered his head, and forced him to lie on the floor of a Humvee for the long trip to a detention facility. Within fifteen minutes of his confinement in the vehicle, he felt an unbearable burning sensation. A Humvee’s engine is located in the front and conducts heat to the rear bed, where al-Ani was lying facedown on the bare metal. He twisted and writhed from the pain, but his American guards thought he was resisting. One of the soldiers stepped harder on his back with his boot. “Jesus, Jesus, please,” he’d cried, he told me, hoping that this invocation in English would get them to relent. 

In front of us in the hospital, he lifted his gown to show us the results: severe burns, in dark-hued patches, covered his stomach, thighs, feet, and palms. As a consequence, al-Ani would endure three months of hospitalization, which involved multiple skin grafts, as well as the amputation of his thumb and the loss of movement of a finger.

After the meeting, I relayed his account of these injuries to my commanding general, who later reported the matter to a Senate inquiry into detainee abuses. The US Department of Justice also included the FBI’s account of this same interview in the inspector general’s 2008 report on detainee interrogations. And, over several years, the US Army investigated the incident, concluding that al-Ani’s injuries were consistent with his story and that “the offences of Assault and Cruelty and Maltreatment was [sic] substantiated.” Despite that finding, the Army dropped the case. 

To my knowledge, nobody was ever disciplined or punished for al-Ani’s mistreatment.

*

It is a cruel irony that this Iraqi man was first used as a prop for an American invasion and then subjected to disfiguring violence by soldiers who had carried out that invasion. But his story weighs on me in other ways. The abuses we’ve seen in US policing have deep, homegrown roots, but I am convinced that they are also partly a result of the militarization of law enforcement born of the Iraq War and America’s other overseas interventions. The Iraq disaster has rippled across virtually every facet of American life, deepening the inequalities that divide us, stirring a popular contempt for “expertise” that has opened the door to demagoguery, and contributing to the hollowing-out of our infrastructure and institutions in ways that have left the country dangerously exposed to future shocks. 


That excerpt alone should raise multiple questions -- including about justice, about oversight, about planning, about objectives.  

The illegal war has not ended and it's no more clearly defined now, nearly 18 years later, than it was at the start when it was sold on one lie after another.  

Last week, Joe Biden, hoping to become the next president, announced that he would leave US troops in Iraq.  The obvious question did not get asked: Why?

Nor did anyone bother to point out that the so-called 'mission' is the same one that has failed year after year.  AL-MONITOR notes: "Biden also told Stars and Stripes that the situation is complicated in Iraq and Syria and that he cannot guarantee a full withdrawal as a result."


It's complicated, is it?  Joe can't guarantee, if elected, that in his four year term he would withdraw US troops from Iraq because it's complicated.  How sick and pathetic. 

Some could get honest and admit that US lives are put at risk to prop up a government that does not serve the Iraqi people.  But Joe's never been an honest broker.

Black Alliance for Peace's Ajamu Baraka observes at COUNTERPUNCH:

By the end of June, a disinformation campaign was launched by New York Times and was quickly followed up by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal that focused on lurid but unsubstantiated reports of the Russians paying bounties to Taliban soldiers to kill U.S. personnel.

In typical fashion, “anonymous sources” were quoted. The reasons why the Russians would engage in this activity and why the Taliban who had essentially defeated the U.S. needed further incentives to fight the U.S. were marginal to the story. It was the headlines that was needed in order to evoke the emotional and psychological response that good propaganda has as its objective. Reason is a casualty when the objective is short-term confusion.

In this case, the objective was to evoke an outcry from the public, to be followed with legislation undermining Trump’s ability to withdraw U.S. personnel from the country and if possible to scuttle the process until after the election, if at all.

On cue, Democrat Congressman Jason Crow teamed up with Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney (daughter of the former vice president) to prohibit the president from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

And when Trump refused to take the bait and undermine his own peace process, Joe Biden accused Trump of “dereliction of duty” and “continuing his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin.”

Afghan Deception is not only Harbinger of Things to Come Under Biden

On September 12th, despite the machinations of the Democrats and other state forces, the Taliban and Afghan government representatives met in Doha to enter the difficult discussions on how to finally bring a resolution to the U.S. war and occupation of their country.

Neoliberals accuse Trump of cynically calculating every decision based on his own needs while neoliberals only operate from a pristine moral position. According to CNN, the peace agreement “was signed in February — at all costs with the goal of helping Trump fulfill his long-stated campaign promise of removing American troops from Afghanistan.”

If Trump was only concerned about his reelection, and there is no doubt that was a major consideration for most of his decisions, how do we characterize the moves made by the corporate press in collusion with the Democrats and Biden campaign — an objective concern for the security of the U.S.?

Two months after the Russia bounty story, the Clinton News Network (CNN) floated another bounty story. This time it was the Iranians! And almost four months after the original bounty story, NBC news reported that no one has been able to verify the story.

But one story that can be reasonably argued is that for the people of the world subjected to U.S. state criminality, the reoccupation of the Executive Branch by the democrats will not bring any change in U.S. behavior. Both parties support the imperatives of U.S. imperialism reflected in Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy that centers an adversarial relationship with Russia and China and committed to maintaining U.S. global hegemony. Both parties supported the obscene increases in military spending, with Biden promising that he will spend even more!

The rightist character of the Democratic Party is such that at their national convention the alignment of right-wing neocons and neoliberals is not even being hidden.

So, while the fear is supposed to be around a further growth of “fascist” forces represented by Trump domestically, for the people of the world the real fascism of anti-democratic, brutal regimes supported by the U.S., murderous sanctions, starvation in Yemen, and right-wing coups in support of fascist forces in Honduras, Brazil and Venezuela will continue unabated.

This is precisely why from the perspective of oppressed nations and peoples’ in the global South, it should not be surprising that some might see progressive and radical support for either colonial/capitalist party as an immoral and counterrevolutionary position.


Issues of life and death are avoided by the corporate press which pretends the wars don't even exist -- except when they need to resell them all over again..


They can't be counted on -- even in a presidential election, to address the serious issues that the country should be discussing.  Issues like war and the environment.  Margaret Kimberley (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) tackles the latter in her latest:

In recent weeks a combination of drought and record breaking heat have accelerated wildfire season to historic levels of devastation. More than 4.6 million acres have burned in the states of California, Oregon and Washington. Skies are colored orange and red, the air is unbreathable, lives have been lost and entire towns have been destroyed.

The connection between heat waves, droughts, and human made climate change are clear and the solution is known to every school child. There must be a drastic reduction in the production of fossil fuels. A radical restructuring of society, especially an end to capitalist incentives for planetary destruction, is no longer optional. Every form of plant and animal life is in very grave danger.

It is easy to blame Donald Trump, who among other things famously withdrew from the 2015 Paris climate accords. Although it must be pointed out that the agreement is an honor system based declaration of intent and not a requirement to take action. Signatory nations chose goals for themselves while also allowing temperature increases that are deadly for people living in the global south. The agreement specifically states that industrialized nations don’t have to pay compensation for the damage they do to the rest of the world. Trump’s stunt gives the impression that Democrats are serious about fighting climate change but the facts prove otherwise. 

“There must be an end to capitalist incentives for planetary destruction.”

Barack Obama recently took to twitter  with photos of orange California skies and implored voters to act. “Protecting our planet is on the ballot. Vote like your life depends on it -- because it does.” He didn’t say who voters should support. One assumes he meant the Democrats, but they have turned their backs on their own timid, mealy mouthed proclamations of concern. 

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) removed language from its platform  which called for ending government subsidies to fossil fuel companies. That betrayal was just as well, because the Democrats’ record on the environment is nothing like the image they project on social media. Obama was joined by California’s Democratic governor Gavin Newsom   who used some of the same photos and offered the same platitudes with capital letters for extra emphasis. “Climate change is REAL. So please VOTE.”

“The Democrats’ record on the environment is nothing like the image they project on social media.”

Obama and Newsom are both liars. This is what Obama said in a March 22, 2012 speech . “Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That's important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.”
Newsom is no better. Despite the social media rhetoric his administration continues to give fracking and other drilling permits. In fact, the state of California has given more fracking  permits in the first six months of 2020 than it did in the same period the year before.

Neither of the two capitalist parties is in any position to stop the planet from heating up. That is because both do the bidding of the corporations causing the record breaking temperatures to occur. One party lies about the damage it is causing and promotes easily dismissed quackery to defend itself. As usual, the Democrats sneer and pretend to act differently when at every opportunity they do the very same things that are killing the planet.


Joe's empty campaign offers nothing.  He's running on the claim "I'm not as bad as the other one."  It's the strategy Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump ran on last time.  Donald ended up winning.  He did that despite the fact that Hillary is in full control of her intellect.  Joe's starting off with a disadvantage but he still thinks he can do better than Hillary?  


Kevin Zeese recently passed away.  At BLACK AGENDA REPORT today, Danny Haiphong remembers Kevin:

The pain of loss is immeasurable yet comrades across the globe have come to view it as an inevitable aspect of the fight for liberation. For the revolutionary, death is neither a secret nor a prophecy. The loss of life is as common as life itself for the oppressed and those who fight on the side of the oppressed. I didn't know Kevin Zeese as well as I would have liked beyond a podcast interview and the honor of sharing a room with him at anti-war conferences. However, what I do know is that his legacy is, and will continue to be, a profound contribution to the world we are trying to build.

One of my few encounters with Kevin was at the impromptu memorial held at the Left Forum for Black Agenda Report's managing editor Bruce Dixon in 2019. Bruce died just prior to the convening of that year’s annual event. Kevin and the rest of the heroic members of the Embassy Protection Collective were still in the midst of fighting federal charges for defending the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington D.C. from illegal seizure by the U.S.-backed coup regime. 

Kevin's words for Bruce were filled with a love for the people that can only develop out of a deep experience in movement politics within the belly of the beast. 



The following sites updated:






Tuesday, September 15, 2020

In Common

 That's "In Common," a great song by Alicia Keys and my personal favorite.

Alicia is a singer-songwriter known for her hits such as "No One," "Fallin'," "A Woman's Worth," "Unbreakable," "Girl On Fire," "If I Ain't Got You," "Like You'll Never See Me Again," . . .


We're doing theme posts tonight -- favorite Alicia Keys song -- and we're doing it because her new album ALICIA comes out this Friday.  


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

 Tuesday, September 15, 2020.  Joe Biden's destruction of Iraq didn't end with his 2002 vote.

A failed state, that's Jimmy Dore's call below.



Joe Biden.  He said Friday that he's for keeping troops in Iraq.  (He also, please note, pretends his son Beau died in Iraq to try to silence the veteran confronting him -- Beau died in the US, he died from cancer, he returned from Iraq in 2009, he died in 2015.)  He wants to keep troops in Iraq.

Despite Tulsi Gabbard lying in the debate at the end of July, and in her days of gabbing afterwards, Joe Biden has never apologized for his vote for the Iraq War.  What he has said is the Bully Boy Bush -- that would be Bully Boy Bush, the global village's idiot -- tricked him.  Joe was tricked by Bully Boy Bush.  That's all he's apologized for -- being so stupid that he was tricked by Bully Boy Bush.  

He could have been held accountable but instead we had Tulsi both lying and whoring for Joe Biden.  Tulsi, don't ever pretend you're anti-war again.  You had a chance to stand up for the never-ending wars, the endless wars, the forever wars and you elected to to step to the other side.  That's on you.  

And what's on Joe is that he championed the Iraq War and never learned a damn thing from it.

In April of 2008, he was noting in a public hearing that there was no real government in Iraq and yet he goes on to pretend otherwise as vice president.  He knew better and he's never been forced to explain that or take accountability for it.  


Barry Grey (WSWS) reports:

The previous day, Thursday, Biden told Stars and Stripes that as president he would keep US troops in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq indefinitely. He spoke the day after Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the US Central Command, announced that the US planned to cut the troop level in Iraq from 5,200 to 3,000 by the end of this month and reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan from 8,600 to 4,500 by November.

According to the military newspaper, “Biden said the conditions in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq are so complicated that he cannot promise full withdrawal of troops in the near future.”

It added that the Democratic candidate “said he does not foresee major reductions in the US defense budget as the military refocuses its attention to potential threats from ‘near-peer’ powers such as China and Russia.” The Pentagon budget has soared under Trump, with overwhelming support from congressional Democrats, to $738 billion.

“In fact,” the article stated, “he [Biden] said defense spending could increase in a Biden administration.” It quoted the former vice president as saying, “I’ve met with a number of my advisers and some have suggested in certain areas the budget is going to have to be increased.”

The article noted that Biden has “vowed” to better equip the National Guard, which is increasingly being deployed in cities across the country to assist local and state police in suppressing left-wing protests.


There is no defense for Joe Biden's vote for the war and his attacks on people who opposed the war.  Joe was wrong and can't admit it.



That video acts as though that's all Joe did.  That's why I've always seen THE REAL NEWS NETWORK as garbage.  Joe Biden harmed Iraq with the 2002 vote.  He did not make things better after.  He continued to harm Iraq.  When the American people were tired of the war finally, Joe was off talking about partitioning Iraq.

No officials or leaders in Iraq were pushing for that notion.  Just Joe.  And what was it but an attempt to divert from calls for US forces to leave Iraq.  In April 2008, he chaired an open hearing where he noted that US forces were being used in Iraq to prop up a government that didn't really exist.

That government didn't exist because it wasn't of Iraq.  It was imposed on them by the US.  And that also explains who has been a prime minister.  Every one who got the post -- not elected by the Iraqi people -- was someone who was too chicken to stay in Iraq.  They had fled and lived abroad and only returned to Iraq in 2003 after the US invasion.

No one wants a chicken, a coward, representing them.  

But we're all supposed to pretend otherwise and look the other way as the US (and Iran) have picked one leader of Iraq after another.

Joe knew US forces were being used to prop up a fake government.  He knew that as a US senator in 2008.  And then he became prime minister and worked with a man he knew was a thug -- Nouri al-Maliki.  He's not been asked to explain that.

In 2008, then-Senator Hillary Clinton rightly called Nouri a "thug" in an open hearing.  That is why, as Secretary of State, she wasn't the leader on Iraq.  Joe was the leader on Iraq for the administration.  And he gladly worked with Nouri and looked the other way while Nouri ran torture chambers and secret prisons.  Joe knew that.  And worked with him.  

It gets worse.  March 2010, Iraqis voted Nouri out.  They made Iraqiya the big winner.  Iraqiya was a coalition of men and women, of Sunnis, Shi'ites, and every other grouping.  Iraqiya was about a national identity.  

Nouri was a thug who was terrorizing the Iraqi people.  And the Iraqi people voted him out.  But when Nouri refused to step down, Joe didn't back democracy, didn't back the Iraqi people, didn't back anything but Nouri.  After eight months and a few weeks, in November of 2010, Nouri al-Maliki (who lost the election) was declared the prime minister of Iraq.  This was carried out via a contract Joe oversaw and sold to various Iraqi leaders: The Erbil Agreement.

It was pork legislation.  To get everyone on board, various groups were promised various things.  Nouri, being the thug he was, never honored it, as soon as he was made prime minister, his spokesperson said the contract was illegal.

And Nouri is probably right about that.  You can't overturn the will of the people with a secret contract.  

There's also the issue of ISIS.  THE REAL NEWS NETWORK is among many liars when it comes to ISIS.  ISIS grew in Iraq for one reason: Nouri al-Maliki was terrorizing the Iraqi people.  That's how ISIS saw an opening.  They showed up on the highway from Baghdad to Falluja.  The Iraqi people had been protesting and Nouri was terrorizing them.  They were on that highway and suddenly these men in garb show up saying they will defend these protesters.  Those 'defenders' were ISIS.  That's when ISIS announces its presence in Iraq and begins building its group.  


Why are US troops still in Iraq?

They're not protecting the Iraqi people.  We're weeks away from a year of Iraqi forces killing and wounding Iraqi activists for the 'crime' of protesting.  Two different prime ministers have insisted the killings should stop but they haven't.  Adil Abdul-Mahdi was prime minister this time last year and was forced out by the Iraqi people for corruption and for the targeting of the activists.  Mustafa al-Kadhimi became prime minister May 7th. 


The killings continue.  ALJAZEERA presented the following program on Monday.



You can be killed for a Tweet in Iraq.  This is the government the US is propping up.  The US military is not on the ground to protect the Iraqi people.  Their presence enables a thuggish government to attack the Iraqi people.

Where is the outrage in the US?

It's not there in part because people who should be using their voices walked away from Iraq long ago -- it wasn't a big fundraiser for them anymore and they didn't get the easy media attention and, let's be honest. the Leslie Cagens are always whores.  

What's taking place is a crime against humanity.

It's appalling and we're on record here calling it out in real time.  In 20 years, when the world finds it outrage over what took place right now, I'm not in the mood to be kind.  People need to speak out in real time.  

The Iraqi people have been denied the right of self-determination.  A government has been imposed on them.  And the US military is used by the US government to keep this illegitimate government propped up.  


ALJAZEERA's program is one that should have been put together by a US news network.  But they look the other way and ignore reality.  Let's not forget that when PBS aired the BBC Iraq documentary a few months back, they cut out several important segments -- insisting the cuts were for time reason.

Yeah, right.  Because, in the midst of this pandemic, PBS has so much new content to offer viewers that their schedule is just too crowded, right?

Because of the turmoil and the outrage of the Iraqi people and because they've taken to the streets, Adil Abdul Mahdi was forced to step down as prime minister after being appointed to a four year term (he would serve less than two years).  Because of the turmoil and the outrage and the protests, Mustafa, appointed May 7th, has announced early parliamentary elections will take place June 6th.  This could result in a new prime minister.  ASHARQ AL-AWSAT reports:

Iraq’s Independent High Electoral Commission announced on Monday five conditions to hold early parliamentary elections in June 2021.


It issued a statement shortly after the country’s highest Shiite authority, Ali al-Sistani, voiced his support for holding the polls during a meeting with United Nations envoy Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert.


The Commission said it welcomed Sistani’s position, saying it will be ready to stage the elections “once its conditions, which it has frequently stipulated, are met.”


Dr. Margaret Flowers is an activist who has long advocated for peace and for Medicare For All.  She has just lost her partner in peace Kevin Zeese.  DISSIDENT VOICE has a piece she wrote about her late husband and this is an excerpt:


As I wrote last week, Kevin Zeese died unexpectedly in his sleep, likely from a heart attack, early in the morning on September 6. He had not shown signs of illness and was working until the end.

Many of you know Kevin from Popular Resistance, from his writing and podcast Clearing the FOG. He had a deep knowledge of history and the issues. He often spoke of his time working for Ralph Nader in 2004 when he wrote policy briefs as a “PhD in public policy.” Kevin understood how political power works.

Kevin’s work in activism spanned more than 40 years. He worked on political campaigns during high school in Queens, New York and protested the Vietnam War. When radical lawyers Ramsey Clark and William Kunstler spoke at SUNY Buffalo, where he was studying political science, Kevin was inspired to join the civil rights movement. He went to Boston to be a marshal for an anti-racism march and was attacked with others by police on horseback.

During law school at George Washington University, Kevin’s favorite class was on legal activism. He describes the experience in Americans Who Tell the Truth:

We created a group SEXCE (Students for the Examination of Contraceptive Effectiveness) and got legislation introduced in Congress, got the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to correct their advertising, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to start a rulemaking process to correct their labeling. It was pretty amazing to see all of that come out of one law school course on Legal Activism.’ Through this project, Zeese says he ‘learned guerilla law and legal judo’—how to leverage the law with minimum cost and maximum impact.

Kevin’s first internship was with the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) answering letters from prisoners. He said this gave him a deep understanding of the destructive impact the War on Drugs has on people and their families. After law school, Kevin worked as legal counsel for NORML and then as executive director. He was working to legalize marijuana when Reagan was president and popular opinion strongly supported the Drug War. Kevin sued the Drug Enforcement Agency three times over the reclassification of medical marijuana and won, but each time the decision was overturned on appeal.

During this time, Joe Biden was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee who worked with the racist head of the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond, to push for a ‘drug czar’ (Reagan vetoed that) and for more severe punishments. Kevin called Biden the architect of the drug war and mass incarceration.


We'll wind down with this tribute to Kevin Zeese by Lee Camp.




The following sites updated:





Some Maria McKee thoughts

So my latest went up Sunday night, "Kat's Korner: Maria McKee and Bright Eyes both return."  I needed C.I.'s help more than ever. If you don't know, I use her as an editor for most of my pieces. There are times when we cut up every paragraph I've written and paste them on a poster board to get the right order for everything. I felt bad because I knew THIRD wanted her (she said she and Ava already did their TV piece so it was fine for her to help me). We got it all cut up and all laid out and then it worked. Thank you, C.I.!!!!

I do love the Bright Eyes album and I do mention that we are lucky that they're back. But I did try, in the Bright Eyes section, to do to the guys what the critics did to Maria -- talk about her sex life and ignore the music. 

Most of you who e-mailed got that but as Brandi pointed out in her e-mail, "Rock is all about sex.  You made it about it with your Bright Eyes commentary while the work on Maria by the press was clinical and asexual."  Lisa Nola e-mailed that she was appalled by "AMERICAN SONGWRITER and the rest for their tabloid style articles about Maria.  In 2020, her growth should be seen as just that, growth, an evolution.  Instead, they were as appalling as Diane Sawyer when she interviewed Ellen DeGeneres and treated being gay like something that was a puzzle."

On Maria McKee, Elaine's "5 great Maria McKee tracks " picks some pretty solid songs Maria's done so be sure to check that out too.  And Elaine just texted me that she's finishing up a post on Joni Mitchell right now, so check that out.

Still on Maria McKee, she does "She Was Born to Be My Unicorn/ Ride A White Swan" on the new collection ANGELHEADED HIPSTER: THE SONGS OF MARC BOLAN AND T. REX. Also featured on the tribute album? Sean Lenon, Kesha, Nick Cave, Beth Horton, U2 with Elton John, Lucinda Williams, Victoria Williams, Todd Rundgren and many more.

 I really do hope you'll check out Maria's new album LA VITA NUOVA because it really is something.  If you love Maria, you will love the album.

 

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

 Monday, September 14, 2020.  Two liars -- one lying for Joe Biden, the other lying to keep US troops in Iraq -- spew lies but, if put together, you can squeeze a little truth out of them. 


Jimmy Dore calls out the idiot Krugman.



Whores like Paul have to whore.  I'm so glad he exposed himself on the anniversary of the execution of the Rosenbergs all those years ago -- as he used that day to praise the fifties in the US.  That's when we knew he was full of s**t and Bully Boy Bush still occupied the White House.  "He lies for the establishment," Jimmy notes.  

Fortunately, he's not alone in calling out the whore.  Algenon D'Ammassa (LAS CRUCES SUN NEWS) notes:


Memory fades after two decades, but that does not explain a bizarre statement made by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Friday. The Nobel-winning economist wrote a series of posts on Twitter in which he stated: “Overall, Americans took 9/11 pretty calmly. Notably, there wasn't a mass outbreak of anti-Muslim sentiment and violence, which could all too easily have happened. And while GW Bush was a terrible president, to his credit he tried to calm prejudice, not feed it.”

It was a maddening erasure of history and Krugman has been justly roasted for it. He also wrote that “home-grown white supremacists” pose a much greater threat, but it came too late. As of Saturday, he had not clarified or deleted his post.

Hate crimes targeting Muslims spiked immediately after 9/11, such that President George W. Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft made public speeches calling on Americans to knock it off. It wasn’t just Muslims but Sikhs, South Asians, anyone who looked like they might be Middle Eastern, or people with Arabic names.

Mosques were vandalized or burned. Hijabs and other coverings were knocked from people’s heads in our streets. Shopkeepers and laborers were denounced as terrorists, told to “go back” to some country they may never have seen.

My own brush with this harassment was farcical. A few weeks after the attacks, I was questioned and searched at Orlando International Airport because my carry-on luggage included a compact disk of the Nubian musician Hamza El Din from southern Egypt, and my first name sounded like it might be Arabic.


Brett Wilkins (COMMON DREAMS) notes:

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman faced withering criticism Friday after he claimed that there was no "mass outbreak of anti-Muslim sentiment and violence" following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. 

"Overall, Americans took 9/11 pretty calmly," Krugman tweeted on the 19th anniversary of the attacks that left nearly 3,000 people dead in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania, and led to U.S. wars of choice in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in which at least hundreds of thousands—and perhaps as many as 2 million—people have died in predominantly Muslim countries. 

[. . .]


Krugman also claimed that President George W. Bush "tried to calm prejudice, not feed it." However, the Bush administration, taking advantage of the nation's collective fear following the attacks, proceeded to lock up thousands of foreign Muslims in "preventive detention" while requiring 80,000 mostly Muslim foreign nationals to register with federal authorities in the hopes that they might net some terrorists. They didn't catch a single one.


Krugman's a whore.  He's far from alone.

Having been part of the Iraq war debate and watched Biden’s role in it for 30 years, I believe it is considerably better than allowed by critics like Gates, or political foes like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas. Iraq has a way of making almost anyone look bad if they stay in the conversation long enough. But Biden has also made positive contributions to the policy-making process that need to be weighed in any net assessment of his record.


That's Micheal O'Hanlon making a filthy mess at USA TODAY.  The American people should collectively roll up a newspaper, smack Michael over the nose with it and say, "Outside, O'Hanlon, outside!"

For those who have forgotten, O'Hanlon was one of those arm chair warriors who took to TV to insist upon war on Iraq.  Over and over.  Michael's defense of Joe sounds a lot like his defense of himself.  He's trash and he's a whore.

If you're not getting how bad O'Hanlon lies, let's note this section:


Later, as vice president, Biden consulted frequently with Iraqi leaders of various stripes and attempted to rein in the increasingly sectarian ways of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who was trying to ban numerous Sunni leaders from Iraqi politics and stack the government and military with his own lackeys. That Biden was ultimately unsuccessful was tragic, since it led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq in 2014 and other huge setbacks. In retrospect, the United States should have backed the moderate, Ayad Allawi, and his political party more strongly. But with President Barack Obama having decided that our forces would soon leave Iraq, Biden’s leverage was limited. 

So many lies.  Let's bring in another liar, Gabrielle Debinski (GZERO) is frantic that no US troops leave Iraq:


Some analysts fear that amid ongoing regional tumult, Iraq's fragile democracy might collapse without a sustained US presence there.

The US has played a key (albeit very flawed) role in propping up Iraq's democracy — broadly viewed as a kleptocracy — and some observers warn that a US troop drawdown will pave the way for hardline Shiite groups to take center stage within an already deeply divided and corrupt political system. Inevitably, this would also exacerbate sectarian tensions by sidelining minority Sunnis and Kurds.

Indeed, this was the case in 2011 when the US withdrew troops deployed for the 2003 invasion. Shiite domination and subsequent clashes over power-sharing arrangements poisoned Iraq's already troubled politics and helped set the stage for the Sunni-supported rise of the Islamic State in 2014. 


O'Hanlon's lying to cover for Joe, Debinski's lying to keep US troops on Iraqi soil.  And as they pursue their own objectives, they let just a little bit of truth out.  First, Debinksi with her statement about the 'fragile democracy' and how it might collapse.  For years now, we have told you that US troops remained in Iraq to prop up the government the US created.  That's the sole reason.  Barack Obama went into a panic in 2014 not when ISIS seized Mosul.  He went into a panic when there were reports that ISIS next planned to seize Baghdad and take control of the Green Zone.  She gets honest about that but she lies about what happened to Iraq.  The drawdown of US troops in 2011 followed the US putting Nouri al-Maliki in charge, giving him a second term.  In 2010, March of 2010, Iraqis went to the polls and voted.  They voted thug Nouri out as prime minister.  Per the results, Ayad Allawi should have been the prime minister-designate.  But Nouri refused to step down.

Oh, it was a surprise, no one could have guessed, lie, lie and more lies.


Gen Ray Odierno, then the top US commander in Iraq, saw that possibility in the months ahead of the election.  But Chrissy Hill (Pigpen Ambassador to Iraq -- famous for insulting the Iraqi people to his Iraqi staff and for taking his mid-day naps under his desk) said no, never happen.


Ray was right.

For eight months, Nouri refused to step down.  Had the US backed the Iraqi people, had they stood up for democracy, things would have been different.

Grasp this: Joe keeps tossing out that Donald Trump might not step down if he loses the election.  Yet not one reporter has the guts to point out to Joe that, in Iraq, Nouri refused to step down and Joe went along with it.

Some US troops leaving Iraq was not responsible for the rise of ISIS: Nouri was.  The US gave Nouri a second term via The Erbil Agreement (a pork contracts that gave various parties what they wanted so they'd go along with Nouri getting a second term).  And they knew Nouri was garbage, they knew he was running secret prisons and torture cells.  They knew he was persecuting his 'enemies' (the press, Sunnis, etc).  

Given a second term, Nouri got even worse.  

The rape of Iraqi girls and women in prisons -- picked up by forces for being related to some man they were searching for but couldn't find, the targeting of Sunni politicians (the brother of one politician was killed when Nouri staged a dawn military raid on the politician's home), on and on it went -- and we paid attention and called it out here.  Nouri's actions led to the rise of ISIS.  That's reality.  

B-b-b-but, O'Hanlan is honest sort of about it!!!!!

No, he's not.  Here's what he wrote:

Later, as vice president, Biden consulted frequently with Iraqi leaders of various stripes and attempted to rein in the increasingly sectarian ways of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who was trying to ban numerous Sunni leaders from Iraqi politics and stack the government and military with his own lackeys. That Biden was ultimately unsuccessful was tragic, since it led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq in 2014 and other huge setbacks. In retrospect, the United States should have backed the moderate, Ayad Allawi, and his political party more strongly. But with President Barack Obama having decided that our forces would soon leave Iraq, Biden’s leverage was limited. 


That's such a lie.  "More strongly"?  They didn't back Ayad Allawi at all.  Ask him if you don't believe me.  He's been very public about that fact in recent years.  He was diplomatic in real time but he no longer feels that need (nor should he) in recent years and he's very clear about being betrayed -- and democracy being betrayed -- by Joe and Barack.

But more to the point, it was already known that Nouri was a thug.  Then-Senator Hillary Clinton called him that in a public hearing in April of 2008 -- and she was right.  In another hearing that same week, Joe Biden expressed concern about a proposed SOFA with Iraq declaring, "We've pledged we're not only going to consult when there is an outside threat, but also when there is an inside threat.  We've just witnessed when Mr. Maliki engaged in the use of force against another Shia group in the south, is this an inside threat?"

Go to the April 10, 2008 snapshot where we reported on that Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- it's the last third of the snapshot. It's very clear in there that Joe knows Nouri's a thug and that there's no real government there.  From the snapshot:

Biden noted the "internal threat" aspect being proposed and how these requires the US "to support the Iraqi government in its battle with all 'outlaw groups' -- that's a pretty expansive commitment."  He noted that it requires the US "to take sides in Iraq's civil war" and that "there is no Iraqi government that we know of that will be in place a year from now -- half the government has walked out." 
 

"Just understand my frustration," Biden explained.  "We want to normalize a government that really doesn't exist."  Senator Russ Feingold wanted to know if there were "any conditions that the Iraq government must meet?"  No, that thought never occurred to the White House.  "Given the fact that the Maliki government doesn't represent a true colation," Feingold asked, "won't this agreement [make it appear] we are taking sides in the civil war especially when most Iraqi Parliamentarians have called for the withdrawal of troops?"  The two witnesses didn't appear to have heard that fact before.  Feingold repeated and asked, "Are you not concerned at all that the majority of the Iraqi Parliament has called for withdrawal"  Satterfield feels the US and the agreement "will enjoy broad popular support" in Iraq.  Satterfield kept saying the agreement wasn't binding.  And Feingold pointed out, "The  agreement will not bind the Congress either, if the Congress were to" pass a law overriding it which seemed to confuse Satterfield requiring that Feingold again point that out and ask him if "Congress passed a clear law overriding the agreement, would the law override the agreement."  Satterfield felt the White House "would have to look carefully at it at the time" because "it would propose difficult questions for us."


He knew what Nouri was years before 2011.  O'Hanlan doesn't want to acknowledge that.  Maybe, O'Hanlan feels now, they should have backed Ayad Allawi.

Even that maybe misses the point.

It wasn't about backing Allawi.  It was about backing the Iraqi people.  It was about showing them that their votes did matter.  Grasp that they risked their lives to vote and saw their votes overturned by the US government.

Grasp that the Iraqi people, voting for Iraqiya, were voting for a national identity.  Imagine how much further along the country of Iraq would be today if democracy had been backed and a national identity fostered?


O'Hanlan doesn't want to deal with that reality, does he?  He does want to insist that, in 2011, Joe didn't have any power to force Nouri out because (some) US forces were leaving.  Hmmm.  That doesn't stand well with this section of the same O'Hanlan column:


Speaking of ISIS, despite earlier mistakes, the Obama-Biden team recovered smartly in 2014 — forcing Maliki out of power as a precondition for U.S. military support in an Iraq-led campaign against the caliphate. 


In 2010, they're powerless to stand up to Nouri but in 2014, they have the power to?  

In what world does that make sense?

They had more power in 2010 because they had the will of the Iraqi people wanting Nouri out of office.  

It's all garbage from garbage liars.

The US will leave Iraq at some point -- I hope during my lifetime.  And the Iraqi people will build their own government.  Until then?  A paternalistic approach that says we must remain in Iraq to protect it.  It's a bit like being scared Junior's going to get some girl or woman pregnant so, as parents, we go on every date Junior has -- every date from his teens to his 20s to his 30s . . . 

We're less than a month away for a full year of persecution of activists in Iraq.  The persecution continues.  They are tracked, they are hunted, they are attacked and they are killed.  By whom?  ALJAZEERA has a special set to air today on this topic:

On Monday, September 14 at 19:30 GMT:
Nearly a year has passed since a wave of popular protest began in Iraq, with people across the country voicing their frustration over issues such as poor public services, unemployment, and corruption. Regular demonstrations have continued, but a string of attacks against activists and analysts has highlighted the ever-present danger of speaking out. 

Two deadly attacks in Basra recently made headlines around the world. Reham Yacoub, a 30-year-old doctor and women's rights advocate, was shot dead by unidentified assailants in the southern port city on August 19. She was killed five days after Tahseen Osama, a father-of-four who regularly took part in anti-corruption protests, was shot dead by attackers who stormed the internet centre he owned. Two other activists in Basra were hurt in an apparent assassination attempt that same week.

News of the assaults was met with anger by Iraqis already on edge over the killing in July of Hisham al-Hashemi, an expert on armed groups who had received threats from Iran-backed militia organisations. Iraq's Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi has sacked Basra's police chief and says the killers of Yacoub and Osama will be brought to justice.

But security experts warn that Iraq's perennially weak government has little control over militia groups, particularly in southern Iraq. Meanwhile, protesters commonly face abuse, arbitrary arrest and assault by Iraqi security forces, according to a report (PDF) released by the United Nations in August. Iraq's government said on July 30 that at least 560 people - protesters and police - had died since October in protests and demonstrations.

The Stream will look at what spurred the attacks in Basra, the daily risks that pro-change voices in Iraq are facing, and what more the country's government can and should do to protect them. Join the conversation.

On this episode of The Stream, we are joined by:
Dorsa Jabbari, @DorsaJabbari
Correspondent, Al Jazeera English
aljazeera.com/profile/dorsa-jabbari

Hamzoz, @Hamzoz
Founder and CEO, Iraqi Network for Social Media

Ali Al Bayati, @aliakramalbayat
Member, Iraqi Independent High Commission for Human Rights

Read more:
Iraqis protest as hospitals overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients - Al Jazeera
Protesters set fire to Iraq parliament's regional office in Basra - Al Jazeera


In other news, at the end of July, Iraq's prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi declared that parliamentary elections would take place in June (June 6th).  Today?  Lawk Ghafuri (RUDAW) reports, "Iraq's three leaders, the president, prime minister, and parliament speaker, are united in their support for a statement from the highest Shiite authority in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, backing early elections held with 'integrity and transparency'."  AP adds, "Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s comments came in a statement released by his office after a meeting with the U.N. envoy to Iraq, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert. A photo released by al-Sistani’s office showed the black-turbaned cleric meeting with the U.N. envoy and an interpreter." Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) reports:

It was his first public face-to-face meeting with a foreign official since the outbreak of coronavirus in Iraq.

Iraq has been hit hard by the pandemic, recording more than 290,000 confirmed cases and more than 8,000 deaths.

Mr Al Sistani does not make public appearances and typically issues a weekly Friday sermon through a representative.

He is Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric and has given significant support to the country’s protest movement.


UNAMI Tweets:

SRSG Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert was received today in Sulaymaniyah by the President of the Republic of #Iraq, Barham Salih. They discussed the current political and security situation in the country, including preparations for the forthcoming early elections.
Image
 



REUTERS notes:

 A debate within Iraq over whether it should ask to be exempt from Opec+ oil supply cuts has resurfaced as low prices squeeze its finances, challenging a government struggling to tackle the destruction of years of war and rampant corruption.
Opec’s second-biggest producer, Iraq has failed in the past to fully comply with Opec+ oil output reductions, pumping above its production targets since the pact was first signed in 2016 between Opec and its allies led by Russia.
“Iraq always believed they were not properly treated in December 2016 when they were not exempted. As the economy continues to reel from low prices this issue keeps resurfacing,” said an Opec source.
Iraq’s economy and oil sector were battered by years of wars, sanctions and a stubborn insurgency triggered by the US invasion.
Baghdad complained it had struggled to revive its stagnating oil industry, at a time where other Opec members benefited and boosted their market share.
Iraq relies on oil to fund 97% of its state budget.


In a bit of good economic news for Iraq, BLOOMBERG MARKETS notes, "Iraq will offer barley for export for the first time after ample rains and price incentives spurred farmers to grow a surplus of the grain. The government plans to start auctioning 700,000 tons of the grain next week and anticipates interest from Gulf Arab states, Jordan and countries in North Africa, agriculture ministry spokesman Hameed Al-Nayef said by phone. It’s setting a minimum price of $125 per ton."

Kat's "Kat's Korner: Maria McKee and Bright Eyes both return" went up yesterday.