Tuesday, August 01, 2017


Kamala Harris will be shoved down our throats apparently.

  1. Loser dems aren't even going through the motions. anointed and voters are expected to go along without question.
  2. No one has voted for except Californians. She is only being discussed because rich people are considering her for the top job.
  3.   Retweeted
    Replying to  
    And this attempt to annoint Kamala Harris & use ID politics to deflect any criticism shows how little they learned from the HRC disaster.

  1. Replying to 
    Maybe there are traits other than "put a lot of people in prison" to valorize among people seeking high elective office.
  2. Kamala Harris has spent most of her career as a prosecutor. Which entails... putting lots of people in prison.

Kamala is now in the US Senate where she does nothing -- just like she didn't do anything proud while the AG of my state.

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

How "Democrats" react when you reveal that Bush FBI appointee & Iraq war huckster Mueller met with the FSB in Moscow

I'm confused about the above.

Not about Keith per se.

He was trash and his verbal attacks on women well known before the faux left embraced him during the Bully Boy Bush years.

We never embraced him here or cited him as anyone to listen to.

But what confuses me about the above is that GQ has brought Keith back.

In a way it makes sense.

Professional bachelor Keith is their audience.

Or was.

For decades, closeted gay men would buy GQ and pretend like it was for something other than the men inside.  Or, as GQ grew ever more desperate, on the cover?  What was the point, GQ, of your infamous Tim Tebow armpit close up?  The cover led to a few more issues sold but only a few.  Maybe if they had made it scratch and sniff . . .

GQ and Keith would seem to be made for one another . . . if it were 1989.

But it's 2017 and the publishing industry still remains in ruins and, more to the point, the Barry Keep It In The Closet Dillers are a thing of the past.

Are there really enough closeted gay men around today to keep GQ afloat?

Keith better hope so because he's burned every bridge he's had -- MSNBC, ESPN, Al Gore's now defunct channel.

Keith, for those who don't know, didn't speak out against the Iraq War in the lead up to the war.

If he had, MSNBC would never have hired him.

Remember, they got rid of Phil Donahue because Donahue was not perceived as sufficiently pro-war.

Keith's a blow hard.

And now he's insulting Julian Assange.

In the world of Made A Difference, Julian stands several feet over tiny Keith.  WIKILEAKS has made a difference.


Well he's had a lot of showy fits.  He's sort of the Neely O'Hara of the chat and chew set -- the Neely to Midge Dector's Helen Lawson.

He had all those years of prime time on a show that was supposed to be about Iraq -- it was about Iraq when Lester Holt hosted it -- and he accomplished nothing.  He didn't lead on burnpits, he didn't lead on war resistance, what did he do?

Oh, that's right, epic rants about Bully Boy Bush.  He did one major put down after another to show how much more intelligent he was than Bully Boy Bush.  Apparently, finding someone dumber than himself was such a rare discovery that he couldn't shut up about it.

All those hours to fill and yet when did he speak with  Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake or Kevin Benderman?

Our 'great' 'lefty' and he did nothing.

He still does nothing.

On a related topic . . .

The fighting is far from over in Mosul, the last ISIS stronghold in Iraq

Yes, observers of Iraq are aware of this.

The question is, why did THE NEW YORK TIMES report it as over weeks ago and now come out with this?

It could have made a difference a few weeks back.

I mean it could have made a difference in how we see the conflict (ongoing, not finished) but, equally true, it also could have made a difference in how we see that paper.

UPI has a piece by Wa'el Alzayat which opens:

After the defeat of the Islamic State in Mosul and likely collapse in Raqqa, the looming question in both countries is what will happen in areas liberated by U.S.-backed forces.
This question is critical for the United States, given the leading role it assumed when it formed the 60-plus country Counter-ISIS Coalition following the fall of Mosul in 2014. Since entering office, U.S. Presi­dent Donald Trump has pursued a strikingly similar approach to his predecessor's by narrowly focusing on dislodging IS while minimizing the U.S. military commitment.

As the so-called caliphate comes to an end, Trump's policy choices will affect the fate of liberated areas and perhaps the entire region. Just as the decision to disband the Iraqi Army and other missteps following the invasion of Iraq haunted post-war efforts, so will the decisions on how to govern and stabilize key Sunni areas in Iraq and Syria.

The world is full of Michael Walzers sadly.

We destroyed it, so we have to stay to fix it?  That b.s. was rejected here with "SHOULD THIS MARRIAGE BE SAVED?" -- thirteen years later, we're having to address it again?

The US cannot save Iraq.

Yes, it managed to destroy Iraq.

But it's efforts since haven't been about saving.

You don't -- as Barack Obama did -- give Nouri a second term after the voters reject him and then pretend you're helping Iraq.

You may be helping yourself but don't pretend you're helping Iraq.

(Barack's move helped so well it resulted in the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq.)

Note these words:

I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisors, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the communists.

Then-President John F. Kennedy speaking of Vietnam in September of 1963.

Apply it to Iraq.

Grasp the Michael Walzers would have the US stay forever.

Let's note this:

If you promote Kurds' Misinformation Campaign against Iraq, u r their friend. If u keep quiet, you are not their enemy. otherwise, u r evil.

I'm sorry.

That man is still with Brookings why?

Check the archives -- we've called him out, we've warned against him.

But Brookings and others have stayed with him.

That is not the Tweet of someone a think tank needs to have on their staff.

The Iraq war has made Tony Blair a rich man . He has made a killing .

"You could make a killing," Aimee Mann sang -- and War Criminal Tony Blair certainly did.

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley -- updated:

  • ADDED: I'm trying to include the WSWS links daily:

    Today the WSWS published "Google's chief search engineer legitimizes new censorship algorithm." It analyzes the April 25 blog post from Ben Gomes, Google’s VP for engineering, who rolled out the new censorship program. Please read the article and share it widely on social media.

    The other articles published on the WSWS so far on Google's new search methods are:

    I do agree WSWS is under attack.

    iraq iraq iraq iraq iraq Iraq