Friday, October 21, 2016

Are you part of the military industrial complex?

I guess at this point, you are -- if you're voting for one of the duopoly candidates for president.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein points out:


  1. Ike originally called it the military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL-complex. In 2014 military contractors gave $8.9M to Dems & $13.5M to Repubs.



So you can vote for peace with Jill or you can vote for, say, Hillary and support continued wars and the profits from them and, who knows, maybe even support the murder of JFK -- it clearly wasn't the Cubans or the Soviets.  It was the war profitteers and the war mongers who killed Kennedy.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, October 20, 2016.  Chaos and violence continues in Iraq as we focus on Wednesday night's debate.


In the time since last night's debate between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a few important themes have developed.

First, the media wants war with Syria -- wants it very badly -- and they're already drooling over (and egging on) the renewed conflict between Russia and the US.


Elaine observed:



After the debate on ABC NEWS, Martha Raddatz was on her attack of Russia kick.

She felt the need to trash Donald Trump.

"He's doubting our intelligence agencies!"

You mean the same ones who cooked the books on Iraq, Martha?

Better question, trashy Martha.

You're a journalist.

You're supposed to be skeptical.

You're supposed to question.

Why can't you do your job?

Oh, that's right, you're a tool of imperialism.

Martha Raddatz had a freak out on air because Donald Trump dared to question the supposed conclusion of our intelligence agencies.

Poor Martha.

Someone give her a happy pill so she can go back to dreamland.





No longer is it just Martha Raddatz, unable to reach a clitoral orgasm without this war, pimping it during a debate, it's everyone after war and more war.



Talk show host Gayle King couldn't get enough of it last night on CBS' post coverage.  And by the way, hosting a daytime talk show and being Oprah's 'gal pal' really don't speak to why you're invited to opine on TV.  CBS has had the weakest staff doing post debate coverage throughout the debates.

On MSNBC's MORNING JOE today, they were whining that Donald Trump would not give them the war they wanted.

And they were editing clips to alter what took place.

Let's go to the transcript of the debate (via THE WASHINGTON POST) first and we'll "***" the section MSNBC edited out this morning -- and the moderator was FOX NEWS' Chris Wallace:




WALLACE: Let's turn to Aleppo. Mr. Trump, in the last debate, you were both asked about the situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo. And I want to follow up on that, because you said several things in that debate which were not true, sir. You said that Aleppo has basically fallen. In fact, there -- in fact, there are... 

TRUMP: It's a catastrophe. I mean...

WALLACE: It's a catastrophe, but there...

TRUMP: ... it's a mess.

WALLACE: There are a quarter of...

TRUMP: Have you seen it? Have you seen it?

WALLACE: Sir...

TRUMP: Have you seen what's happening to Aleppo?

WALLACE: Sir, if I may finish my question...

TRUMP: OK, so it hasn't fallen. Take a look at it.

WALLACE: Well, there are a quarter of a million people still living there and being slaughtered.

TRUMP: That's right. And they are being slaughtered...

WALLACE: Yes.

TRUMP: ... because of bad decisions.

WALLACE: If I may just finish here, and you also said that -- that Syria and Russia are busy fighting ISIS. In fact, they have been the ones who've been bombing and shelling eastern Aleppo, and they just announced a humanitarian pause, in effect, admitting that they have been bombing and shelling Aleppo. Would you like to clear that up, sir?

TRUMP: Well, Aleppo is a disaster. It's a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from the -- from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at Aleppo. It is so sad when you see what's happened.
And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton, because what's happened is, by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought, and now she's going to say, oh, he loves Assad, she's -- he's just much tougher and much smarter than her and Obama. And everyone thought he was gone two years ago, three years ago. He -- he aligned with Russia.
He now also aligned with Iran, who we made very powerful. We gave them $150 billion back. We give them $1.7 billion in cash. I mean, cash. Bundles of cash as big as this stage. We gave them $1.7 billion.


****************************
Now they have -- he has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don't want ISIS, but they have other things, because we're backing -- we're backing rebels. We don't know who the rebels are. We're giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don't know who the rebels are. And when and if -- and it's not going to happen, because you have Russia and you have Iran now. But if they ever did overthrow Assad, you might end up with -- as bad as Assad is, and he's a bad guy, but you may very well end up with worse than Assad.
If she did nothing, we'd be in much better shape. And this is what's caused the great migration, where she's taking in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, who probably in many cases -- not probably, who are definitely...
WALLACE: Let me...
TRUMP: ... in many cases, ISIS-aligned, and we now have them in our country, and wait until you see -- this is going to be the great Trojan horse. And wait until you see what happens in the coming years. Lots of luck, Hillary. Thanks a lot for doing a great job.
WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, you have talked about -- and in the last debate and again today -- that you would impose a no-fly zone to try to protect the people of Aleppo and to stop the killing there. President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it's going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict.
And General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you're going to get into a war -- his words -- with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is, if you impose a no-fly zone -- first of all, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?

**************************


CLINTON: Well, Chris, first of all, I think a no-fly zone could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict. I'm well aware of the really legitimate concerns that you have expressed from both the president and the general.

This would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.



It's cute the way they disappeared criticism of Hillary's no-fly zone.

It's also cute how certain whores were thrilled by Hillary's refusal to answer questions.

Let's talk Chuck Todd.

First off, what is NBC's obsession with balding, unattractive males.

TV is a visual medium.

If you don't have the news chops -- and Matt Lauer and Chuck Todd do not -- then you don't belong on TV unless you're visually appealing.  It's a visual medium.

Chuck Todd needs to shave the head bald or leave TV.

As it is, he not only looks ridiculous but those sparse and fine hairs look unwashed.  (He's probably washing them but that's what the camera does to people with his condition.)

He never should have been allowed to continue as host of MEET THE PRESS.  It would have made more sense to toss it to Tim's son Luke Russert, for example.  Tim was not GQ perfection, he was attractive and he did have chemistry with the camera.

MEET THE PRESS continues to struggle because with Chuck's eyes and the shady look his current hair situation gives him, he looks like a con man.  That's why viewers leave.  Shave the head or fire his ass.

On NBC, in the aftermath of the debate, there was Chuck Todd exclaiming Hillary was wonderful because she talked about what she wanted to.

She did not answer questions -- repeatedly.

And a journalist is applauding this?


Here's one example.


[WALLACE:] Secretary Clinton, during your 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, you promised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with your dealing with the Clinton Foundation while you were secretary of state, but e-mails show that donors got special access to you. Those seeking grants for Haiti relief were considered separately from non-donors, and some of those donors got contracts, government contracts, taxpayer money.
Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee? And why isn't what happened and what went on between you and the Clinton Foundation, why isn't it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?


CLINTON: Well, everything I did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values. The State Department has said that. I think that's been proven.
But I am happy, in fact I'm thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation, because it is a world-renowned charity and I am so proud of the work that it does. You know [. . .]





Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee?

She refused to answer.

She refused to talk about the pledge itself -- and, as I pointed out when her hacks were defending her on the possible conflicts of interest, it wasn't no conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest is unethical.

Every government employee is supposed to avoid that.

The position she was being given was so important that she had to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest -- which she clearly did not.


Chuck Todd needs to stop pretending he's a judge on AMERICAN IDOL and start dealing with reality.  She wants to be president.

Repeatedly, she refused to answer direct questions.

Her 'pivoting' that Todd found so admirable is not a quality a democracy wants from a leader.




Another reality, the corporate media is determined to bury WikiLeaks -- in part to protect her -- as they have done throughout the last two years.

But also to protect themselves.  People paid to be journalists that crossed lines and are exposed by WikiLeaks include Donna Brazile, Matthew Lee, Glenn Thrush and John Harwood.

However, the most important reason the WikiLeak revelations are so offensive to the press is it exposes that for nearly two years they have failed to do their job.

They have failed.

They have allowed the Democratic Party's primary to be rigged and denied it and ridiculed those making the claims and yet we know it's true now, we know the DNC favored one candidate (Clinton) and worked to bury Bernie Sanders.

They have failed.


All the ridiculous David Brocks and Bob Somerbys have bitched, moaned and whined about how easy the press was to Donald Trump in the primaries -- compared to other GOP candidates -- and we now know that was treatment which was promoted by Hillary's campaign because they wanted her to run against Donald all along.

The media has been filled with whores ready to sell out their viewers and readers and listeners.

No surprise that they want to shut down WikiLeaks.

But here's the thing, in an open society, revelations are discussed.

Not by blaming Vladimir Putin but by addressing what you and your staff wrote in those e-mails.

Donald's right to be skeptical of Hillary's constant whining "Russia did it!"

She doesn't know a damn thing.


Instead of addressing the e-mails, Hillary fell back, yet again, on "Blame Russia" (who knew SOUTHPARK had come up with a follow up?):


 But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. And what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.
This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.



Let's turn to Iraq.



This might get buried but Trump accused the Iraqi military of going into Mosul to make Hillary Clinton look good. Quite a thing to say.







No, let's not let this get buried.

We already noted CBS has a disaster pool of non-journalists who don't know what they're doing.

Sopan Deb is one.

Let's not bury this because Deb is either illiterate or unread.

CBS pays him to cover the race.

So why are his panties in a wad over what Donald Trump said?


Dropping back to the August 1st snapshot:

POLITICO asserts that US President Barack Obama is planning an October Surprise to influence the outcome of this year's presidential election.

For those late to the topic, refer to Robert Parry's reporting on the 1980 October Surprise at CONSORTIUM NEWS.


POLITICO'S Mark Perry reports that Barack is planning to start the battle to retake Mosul in early October and, "If Mosul is retaken, it would both mark a major political triumph for Barack Obama and likely benefit his party’s nominee at the polls, Hillary Clinton, undercutting Republican claims that the Obama administration has failed to take off the gloves against the Islamic State."




And Trump did not accuse the Iraqi military of that [he was speaking of the White House: "The only reason they did it is because she is running for the office of president and they wanted her to look good."].

Sopan Deb is real good at going with Hillary's spin.

He's just not good at reporting.

And, scary thought here, Donald Trump might be better read than the reporters covering him.


Iraq was raised.

Why?



[WALLACE:] The Iraqi offensive to take back Mosul has begun. If they are successful in pushing ISIS out of that city and out of all of Iraq, the question then becomes, what happens the day after? And that's something that whichever of you ends up -- whoever of you ends up as president is going to have to confront.
Will you put U.S. troops into that vacuum to make sure that ISIS doesn't come back or isn't replaced by something even worse? Secretary Clinton, you go first in this segment. You have two minutes.



CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.


Will you put US troops into that vacuum?

She doesn't answer.

She says no US troops "as an occupying force."

Hillary, like Bill before her, is known for weasel words.

Lawyer-ese.

Legal-ese.

She should have been asked to define what she meant.


More to the point, she should have been forced to answer what can be done the day after because nothing has been done to prepare for that -- not for the refugee crisis, not for the ongoing political crisis.


The following community sites updated:






  • iraq

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Blog Archive