Tuesday, March 21, 2017

The Democratic Party keeps failing

I'm not trying to gloat, honest.

I just marvel over all the money the Democratic Party keeps wasting.

  1. this isn't even an issue of ideology or liberal or left, it's baseline accountability. They had over a decade & $100s of millions and failed
  2. in 2016 David Brock blew $20 million on reddit trolls, deluded phalangist twitter scolds and montages of Fox News contradicting themselves
  3. lesson from Dems losing over a 1000 seats & all reins of power is give David Brock a couple million more to debunk HillaryForPrison dot Biz
  4. Media Matters & CAP had a combined $50m or so a year for 12 years to build a compelling messaging apparatus and lost to improvising racist
  5. like, there's an argument you have to raise millions from rich assholes, fine, but WHY ARE WE GIVING IT TO DAVID BROCK & NEERA TANDEN AGAIN
  6. why are we pouring millions into CAP & Media Matters who had literally 12 yrs to build for a 2016 win and massively blew it.





They appear not to learn.



Good, Greens have a chance at major building over the next four years.



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


Tuesday, March 21, 2017.  Chaos and violence continue, FRONTLINE (PBS) gears up to air a report on Iraq tonight, Iraq's PM meets with the US President, The Mosul Slog continues, and so much more.



AA reports a Monday evening Baghdad car bombing left at least 13 people dead and at least sixteen more injured.  The 14th anniversary of the Iraq War didn't look any different than it did when it started.

14 years.

Millions of lives.

Trillions of dollars.

What is there to show for it?

An unpopular government based in Baghdad, installed and propped up by the US government.


Meanwhile, it's Day 155 of The Mosul Slog.


155 days to liberate -- or 'liberate' -- Mosul and still counting.



Tonight on most PBS stations.



Displaced Iraqi civilians tell they’re as scared of the militias as they are of ISIS












Follow as she goes undercover to an Iraqi town liberated from ISIS, now under militia control — 3/21











Don't miss FRONTLINE tonight.

And maybe if you pay for THE NEW YORK TIMES, drop a line asking for a refund since their 'lady embed' has failed to report on any of what you will see on PBS tonight.

And if the liar's offended by that, I stated publicly, right here, that she had seen stuff, that reporters -- other reporters -- were talking about the garbage she was churning out and how she was ignoring reality.

I gave you a warning, a public one.  It's your own fault that you are the new Judy Miller.

Rukmini Callimachi -- may her name be spat out whenever press whores are discussed.

On FRONTLINE tonight, we should learn about the civilians -- you know, the ones who were supposed to be rescued, the ones who were the whole point of liberating Mosul?


The ones Rukmini forgot.




750,000 Iraqis are trapped in the western part of the city as Iraqi forces fight house to house to force out ISIL









The Mosul Slog is not a success by any means.


Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) notes, "Also in Mosul, a police colonel and eight more officers were captured in the Bab Jadid district after they ran out of ammunition."


Let's move over to Monday's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Mark Toner because Iraq came up.

Not at the start, of course.  Because the No Stars of the State Dept Press Corps never ask about Iraq.

In fairness to AP's Matthew Lee, we should point out that questions are probably harder for him these days since he no longer has Victoria Nuland to feed him questions ahead of the briefings and then call on him during the briefing so he can ask the question she assigned him.  (I love those e-mails, Matt, love them.)


Monday's briefing:

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Iraq?

MR TONER: Yeah, I’ll do Iraq. Go ahead.

QUESTION: The Iraqi prime minister is here with a delegation that includes the chief of staff to KRG President Barzani, and their meetings include with Secretary Tillerson. What are the main issues on the agenda of these talks, and what are your goals in these discussions?

MR TONER: Sure. As you noted, the prime minister is in town with a delegation, and I think Secretary Tillerson is meeting at the White House with – along with the President, obviously, taking part in that meeting later today.
Our goals are pretty straightforward. It’s to reiterate our support for the Iraqis in their long struggle to defeat and destroy ISIS. We also want to encourage them to take the necessary steps to prevent the re-emergence of ISIS, and to – we also want to communicate our support for a prosperous, unified, and democratic Iraq going forward.
Under Prime Minister Abadi, Iraq has made real progress with respect to defeating and destroying ISIS. What comes next is another aspect of ensuring that ISIS doesn’t come back, and that’s dealing with economic, political reforms, but also ensuring that we deal with some of the tensions in Iraqi society, and also reestablish – and I’m talking about stabilization efforts here – reestablish order, infrastructure, so that places like Mosul can welcome back those who have fled or those who have stayed, frankly.

QUESTION: On the political reforms, I assume you have – the building has some ideas on that. Would they include, sort of, decentralization of authority and power within Iraq or what --

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean, some of these things are well known with respect to our concerns, but again, we feel that Prime Minister Abadi has been, so far, shown himself to be a willing partner. He’s tackled some of these reforms himself already, so we’re positive going forward that he’s going to take additional steps.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Can I stay on Iraq?

MR TONER: Yes, let’s stay here.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on Laurie’s question. You usually repeat this unified Iraq. Is it the message to the Kurds that sometimes they are – especially during the spring – that they are claiming to have an independence or separation from the – from Iraq. And that’s just a follow-up.
And the second question is going to be the – Iraq’s demand several times – the Iraqi officials, including the Prime Minister Abadi, asking for activating the strategic agreement with the United States. Do you have this --

MR TONER: The last part again, I’m sorry. The – I apologize.

QUESTION: The Iraqi prime minister, several times, ask for reactivating the strategic agreement with the United States. Is there any, like, willing from your side to activate this strategic agreement beyond ISIS, beyond military cooperation?

MR TONER: With respect to the strategic agreement, I don’t have an update on that. I think, like I said, our focus – immediate focus – and that’s going to be obviously true with respect to the ministerial on Wednesday and Thursday this week – is how do we ensure a quick – how do we accelerate our efforts to destroy and defeat ISIS, but then how do we, again, redouble our efforts to stabilize those areas that have been liberated from ISIS.
With respect to the unity of Raqqa[1], you’re right, that is something we make a point of saying. But ultimately, these are all internal political discussions that Iraq needs to have with all ethnic groups resident in the country.

QUESTION: Iraq – still Iraq?

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Thanks much.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: As Iraqi forces have increasingly relied on, turned to airstrikes and artillery in their operations in western Mosul, we’ve seen more and more reports, accounts from locals describing situations where airstrikes hit not only houses – not only houses where ISIL is located, but also nearby buildings, killing many civilians. Does the United States do anything to change the manner in which these bombings are carried out?

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: Or have they?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean – again, I’d preface my response by saying that’s something that DOD can speak with – speak to in greater detail, but of course, whenever there are legitimate allegations of civilian casualties, we investigate them. And I don’t have the website in front of me, the URL address for it, but there is a website that DOD, the Department of Defense, maintains that actually aggregates any of these claims and follows through on them, which means it puts out a report about the incident – whether it’s credible, whether it’s not, what happened, what steps are taking – going to be taken to address any civilian casualties and also amend it going forward.

QUESTION: But I understand. Can I please --

MR TONER: Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: On their website, there haven’t been updates in the past month, if I understand it correctly.

MR TONER: I think it’s – I was about to say I think it’s a monthly basis, so I don’t know. But these things also take --

QUESTION: Since the beginning (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Sorry, but these things also take time, obviously, because it’s a battlefield. But in direct response to your question, yes, when there are credible claims of civilian casualties, they’re investigated by the U.S. military or by the Iraqi Security Forces. Reports are made, assessments are made, and any corrective measures are taken to avoid any regrettable incidents in the future.

QUESTION: So yes to the question – the question was “Does the United States do anything to change the manner in which the bombings are right now carried out in” --

MR TONER: I think we always – we always – so based on reports, assessments, we would always take steps, obviously, to avoid civilian casualties going forward.

QUESTION: I just have one more follow-up.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: So in one instance, an airstrike hit a house, killed, according to a witness, three people, severely injured a five-year-old girl, and --

MR TONER: This is in Mosul?

QUESTION: -- the father said it took – yes, a neighborhood in Mosul – and her father said it took them three days to get her to the hospital. With that, I want to ask, what does the U.S. do to help people exit the fighting and get help?

MR TONER: I do – and I can get you more details, but obviously, we’ve been working in conjunction with the UN, but – Iraqi Security Forces in creating corridors to get civilians out safely. We had set up with the UN basically refugee facilities and camps so that those displaced by the fighting in Mosul could find temporary shelter in the aftermath or during the fighting. That said, it’s an active battlefield, and so obviously, it’s very difficult in some circumstances. I don’t know the incident you’re speaking about specifically, but that it might take some delay. I just – I don’t know specifically the incident you’re referring to, but in general, we have taken steps to – and frankly, the Iraqi Government has taken steps.

A couple more questions, guys.


Yesterday, US President Donald Trump met with Iraqi Prime Minister Hayder al-Abadi.




Today welcomes the Prime Minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi, to the White House.












رئيس مجلس الوزراء الدكتور حيدر العبادي يلتقي الرئيس الامريكي السيد دونالد ترامب
PM Al-Abadi meets with earlier today









Ellen Mitchell (THE HILL) reports:

A bipartisan group of senators is urging President Donald Trump to continue U.S. support in Iraq following a “forthcoming” ousting of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) from the country. 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.), penned a letter Monday asking Trump to “continue working with Iraq’s leaders to preserve their country’s unity and ensure its stability.”


If that surprises you, refer to the Senate hearing report in the March 7th snapshot.

Ben Cardin's been gunning for full out war and lasting war on Iraq for some time.


The plan for Wednesday's snapshot is to talk about the silence -- hey, CODESTINK, we'll be talking about you and Medea and . . . -- and the damage that silence does and how it's rooted in cowardice.


ADDED:  The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley and Cindy Sheehan -- updated:






















  •  











  • Monday, March 20, 2017

    Why I'll keep voting Green

    44 Iraqis have just been killed in a terrorist attack in . Another 44 set of families, friends, colleagues devastated tonight.





    How's that Iraq War working out?

    Never ending.

    I thought Barack was elected -- in 2008 -- to end it.

    Didn't he get a Nobel Peace Prize for that promise?


    They gave it to him before he'd even been in the White House for a year.

    But he didn't end the Iraq War.

    He and the Nobel Peace Prize committee are full of s**t.

    The Iraq War continues.

    And few in the US even bother to note that -- even fewer bother to object to it.

    I am so sick of Democrats -- my husband excepted -- and that's why.

    They're fake asses.

    I'll keep voting Green.

    And it's for reasons like this.

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


    Monday, March 20, 2017.  The never-ending Iraq War continues, 14 years after it started.


    Let's start in England.  Scott D'Arcy (COVENTRY TELEGRAPH) reports:




    A criminal probe into a disgraced Coventry lawyer who brought false claims against Iraq War veterans has a number of "lines of inquiry", the National Crime Agency (NCA) has said.
    A file on Phil Shiner, who was struck off last month for dishonestly pursuing torture and murder claims against British troops, has been passed to the agency by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).


    I know Phil Shiner.

    I've known him for years.

    We stepped away from his work because there was clearly a problem with it.

    We did that before the scandal broke, by at least a year before.

    I was bothered by his methods, I was bothered by his filings.

    I don't see how they raise to criminal but the UK has different laws than the US and they may.  (I hope they don't.)

    It's amazing that here we stand, on the 14th anniversary of the Iraq War, and the only one facing legal charges with regards to the illegal war is Phil Shiner.

    I think he did some shoddy work.  I think he went beyond what he should have done.

    But how very sad that the most public defender of the Iraqi people would be the one to face legal charges and not the crooks who started the illegal war and who prolong it.


    Australia's RED FLAG notes:

    Fifteen years ago, the offices of president George W. Bush, British prime minister Tony Blair and Australian PM John Howard ran a sustained propaganda campaign to justify the pending invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. They were assisted by compliant media that reported outright lies as unvarnished fact.
    Now, thanks to the release of a highly redacted report written by a senior analyst in the Australian army, it’s been confirmed that the case for war was a pack of lies from start to finish.
    There were three components of the pro-war propaganda in the months leading up to the attack. One was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and was ready to use them; it was only a matter of time, furthermore, before Iraq developed a nuclear capability. The second was that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was funnelling assistance to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. The third was that Iraq was flouting UN resolutions.
    Originating mainly from the White House and 10 Downing Street, these arguments were eagerly picked up and run by the Howard government, the Murdoch press and large swathes of electronic media.
    Even Fairfax’s Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers, which gave more space to the anti-war case, did their bit. A Herald page one headline in September 2002 read: “Saddam ready and able to strike. British PM claims Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes”.
    Despite this sustained propaganda offensive, most people were never won to the case for war. In January 2003, only 6 percent of Australians supported joining the invasion without UN backing. More impressive were the enormous anti-war rallies over the weekend of 14-15 February 2003, with 800,000 turning out against the looming invasion, along with millions more in the rest of the world.
    “No war for oil!” was our chant. For some, this meant that the war was solely about the US stealing Iraq’s oil and handing out “reconstruction” contracts to well-connected firms like Halliburton. Socialists argued that there was more to it than just outright theft; the attack on Iraq was driven by the United States’ attempt to reinforce its hegemony not just in the Middle East but around the world.

    By controlling the supply of oil from Iraq, one of the world’s largest producers, the US could gain leverage over established imperialist rivals in Europe as well as up and coming powers such as China, whose economies depended on Middle Eastern oil. It was about the US using the one tool, military firepower, in which it had a distinct advantage over all its rivals, to show who was boss.


    That's the reality.

    It's one so many work so hard to obscure.




    Read this & remember that w/out journalism there is no democracy. There may not be $ in TRUTH anymore, but w/out it justice has no chance









    Is journalism important, you clown?

    Then why is it that you and Ava have to go to an obit to find something/someone to praise?

    It's an obit of John Herbers -- the linked piece.

    And when did he leave journalism?

    1987.

    That's the best Sarah and Ava DuVernay can come up with.


    See, the press took a dive.

    They sold out everything that journalism is supposed to stand for.

    They did that to sell the Iraq War.

    And so many saw them exposed for what they really were.

    Even now, they can't be honest about it.

    Not even the repentant Chris Hedges.

    See Chris worked for THE NEW YORK TIMES.  And that paper started pushing for war on Iraq in October of 2001.  In a front page story.  Co-written by Chris Hedges.

    The 'report' long ago fell apart.

    Even all these years later, even after leaving NYT, Chris still won't get honest about that report.

    Even Chris Hedges, who savages the press, won't get honest.

    He won't tell the truth about that story: How it was assigned, how it was written.

    He gave two anonymous sources the space to lie.  One source has been outed, the other has been ignored.

    If you've never read that front page story, it's "A Nation Challenged: The School; Defectors Cite Iraqis Training For Terrorism."


    Look it up and grasp that 'brave' Chris Hedges was doing propaganda for the war before Judith Miller.  Grasp that Chris Hedges got away with it.  Grasp that Chris Hedges speaks and writes endlessly but never wants to grapple with that article or get honest about it.

    The Iraq War has been going on for 14 years, Chris' lies made the front page sixteen years ago (six months shy of a full 16 years).

    And we still can't have an honest conversation about that.


    I like Jake Tapper but did he or did he not pick the worst time to say something stupid?



    Really now? Were you in a coma when a man named George W. Bush lied about Iraq having WMDs and slaughtered over a million innocent people?











    Here's a tip, CNN, keep your news people off circuses.  There was no reason for Tapper to be on that hideous program to begin with and it lowers the CNN brand when anyone from the network appears on it.

    Clearly, it also lowers their number of brain cells if Jake Tapper's going to claim that about Trump.

    I don't doubt that Donald Trump has the ability to lie the country into war.

    Thus far, however, he hasn't done it.

    Bully Boy Bush has.

    Barack Obama has lied his way through continuing the Iraq War.

    There was the drawdown passed off as a withdrawal.

    Only Ted Koppel dared to tell the truth about that (on NBC and on NPR's TALK OF THE NATION).


    He certainly couldn't explore it in THE NEW YORK TIMES.

    Jill Abramson had made clear to everyone that (a) she didn't care about the Iraq War and (b) she saw the paper as serving Barack Obama's administration.


    Still, as September 2012 closed down, Tim Arango squeezed into an article on Syria the news that US President Barack Obama had just sent a brigade of Special-Ops into Iraq in the fall of 2012.


    Fake news?


    If Sarah Silverman can face reality, she'd grasp that there were debates in October 2012 -- presidential and vice presidential.

    And not one 'moderator' raised the issue of Barack sending a brigade into Iraq.


    Here's what Tim Arango got into his New York Times report on Syria:

     
    Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.        


    Fake news?

    It's always been around us.

    Iraq just ended up exposing how corrupt so-called journalists actually were.


    It's day 154 of The Mosul Slog and THE NEW YORK TIMES has hired a ditz and embedded her with Iraqi thugs whom she praises while ignoring War Crimes that she sees.

    That's the reality of the press.

    Here's another reality of the press:



    in my life time––from the Gulf War to Kosovo to Iraq to Libya––the NYTimes editorial board has never once opposed a US war.







     And, of course, last year saw Crooked Hillary get the Democratic Party's nomination -- despite having voted for the Iraq War.  Despite having supported it.  Despite having done to help Iraq while she was Secretary of State.




    She voted for the Iraq war, supports using and supports sweatshop labor.












    But, hey, she called it a mistake.

    Right?

    Then elaborated that her 'mistake' was to put her trust in Bully Boy Bush.  (She thought Bully Boy Bush would send more US troops into Iraq.  That was her 'mistake.')

    No, your mistake was voting for an illegal war.




    This what happened to 14 years ago. 😔

    03/19/2003











    On this day 14 years ago Bush announced launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom. US media cheered, then got bored when hundreds of thousands died.










    Today, US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Hayder al-Abadi at the White House.

    Hayder's accomplished nothing since the US installed him in 2014.

    There is still no political solution.

    Maybe one will come?  From Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr?


    Jonathan Steele (MEM) reports:


    The beard has gone grey, the eyes are less stern but, above all, his ideas have changed dramatically.
    Muqtada al-Sadr, once dubbed "the radical firebrand cleric" in every Western media article that mentioned him, presents himself today, at the age of 43, as a promoter of sectarian tolerance and Iraqi national reconciliation.
    In his first interview with a foreign journalist for three years, the man who created a Shia militia which fought the Americans and the British for several years of their occupation, told Middle East Eye that he wants all militias, including his own, to be disbanded.
    He also said he favours urgent dialogue with Iraq's Sunni politicians so as to prevent clashes between Sunni and Shia, as well as Arabs and Kurds, once the country no longer has an enemy to unite against.
    "I'm afraid that the defeat of . . . [Islamic State] is only the start of a new phase. My proposal is inspired by fear of sectarian and ethnic conflict after Mosul's liberation," he said.
    "I want to avoid this. I am very proud of Iraq's diversity but my fear is that we may see a genocide of some ethnic or sectarian groups."



    New content at THIRD: