The betrayer Hillary

As the Democrats continue to battle over who to pick to be their party's presidential nominee, Cornel West weighs in at Politico:

The future of American democracy depends on our response to the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. And that legacy is not just about defending civil rights; it’s also about fighting to fix our rigged economy, which yields grotesque wealth inequality; our narcissistic culture, which unleashes obscene greed; our market-driven media, which thrives on xenophobic entertainment; and our militaristic prowess, which promotes hawkish policies around the world. The fundamental aim of black voters—and any voters with a deep moral concern for our public interest and common good—should be to put a smile on Martin’s face from the grave.
The conventional wisdom holds that, in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton is the candidate who will win over African-American voters—that her rival, Bernie Sanders, performed well in Iowa and won New Hampshire on account of those states’ disproportionate whiteness, and that Clinton’s odds are better in the upcoming contests in South Carolina and Nevada, two highly diverse states.
But in fact, when it comes to advancing Dr. King’s legacy, a vote for Clinton not only falls far short of the mark; it prevents us from giving new life to King’s legacy. Instead, it is Sanders who has championed that legacy in word and in deed for 50 years. This election is not a mere campaign; it is a crusade to resurrect democracy—King-style—in our time. In 2016, Sanders is the one leading that crusade.
Clinton has touted the fact that, in 1962, she met King after seeing him speak, an experience she says allowed her to appreciate King’s “moral clarity.” Yet two years later, as a high schooler, Clinton campaigned vigorously for Barry Goldwater—a figure King called “morally indefensible” owing to his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And she attended the Republican convention in 1968! Meanwhile, at this same moment in history, Sanders was getting arrested for protesting segregation in Chicago and marching in Washington with none other than King itself. That’s real moral clarity.

 

Hillary is a liar.

The attack on assistance in the nineties was a racist and sexist attack on women which devalued raising children and caring for them.

Hillary is no feminist I would want to be like.

She's also a fraud who can't deliver on her empty promises.

It's very telling that she wants to 'listen' to African-Americans but there's no effort to even float one for her running mate.

Apparently having 1 bi-racial president means we never need an African-American on ticket.


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

Tuesday, February 16, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, the objection to the Bushes continue, there's a new Judith Miller in town, and much more.



THE GOOD NEWS.

Three kidnapping victims have been released.  Dropping back to the January 21st snapshot for background:

There's a new development today in the kidnapping of three Americans in Iraq. In fact, there are two new developments.  Background: Sunday, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) broke the news that 3 Americans were missing in Iraq. Monday,  CBS NEWS and AP reported, "A group of Americans who went missing over the weekend in Iraq were kidnapped from their interpreter's home in Baghdad, according to an Iraqi government intelligence official."
Today, Susannah George (AP) reports that "two powerful Shiite militias are top suspects" in the kidnapping:  Asaib Ahl al-Haq and Saraya al-Salam.



Now from today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Mark Toner:



QUESTION: Do you have any more information about the Americans who were released in Iraq today? Specifically, was the U.S. involved in the investigation? Who were they?

MR TONER: I don’t, and I – and you heard my sigh when I – as you asked me that question, because I understand there’s a lot of interest in this story. First of all, we welcome the release of these individuals. I mean, it’s a huge relief; it’s a good news story. These folks are now on their way home, which is where they should be headed. I don’t – because of the Privacy Act restrictions – none of them signed a Privacy Act waiver, and I know that infuriates all of you. It infuriates me as someone who wants to convey information and talk about the work that was done behind the scenes, but I cannot. All I can say is that we are appreciative of and grateful for the Iraqi Government’s efforts to obtain the release of these individuals, but for any details, I’d have to refer you to them to speak to that.

QUESTION: Did Iran help at all, since it was brought up by the Secretary?

MR TONER: I know. I’m aware that he raised that and he acknowledged that. I just don’t have any more detail to offer. Sorry.

QUESTION: And can you – will you be able to say at one point who you believed was holding them, since there was, I think --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- public --

MR TONER: Speculation --

QUESTION: -- obfuscation of what the Iraqi police itself said were the prime suspects?

MR TONER: Again, I mean, the Iraqi Government is under no Privacy Act restrictions.

Michael.


From the good to the bad . . .


THE SCUM ALSO RISES.  Look who's back, Bully's back.  Bully Boy Bush.  We ignore him.  We go about our business thankful that he is no longer in the White House and thrilled to ignore him so long as he hides under his rock.

He's emerged.

To demonstrate that he's aged poorly, gained weight and, yes, is balding.


Dreaming of the pleasure I'm going to have
Watching your hairline recede
My vain darling
-- "Just Like This Train," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her COURT & SPARK.



And now he's out campaigning for his older brother Jeb who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination.


And Iraqis are weighing in, as Loveday Morris (WASHINGTON POST) reports:

"We are fed up with the Bush family, come on. No more Bushes, please," he said. He recalled George H.W. Bush's "betrayal" when he urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War in 1991 but then did not support them. The death toll reached the tens of thousands.
"Unfortunately they cheated us," Bayati said, adding George W. Bush was even more damaging in his handling of the fallout from the 2003 invasion. He says he has little faith that any president will improve things for Iraq.
"They have the problem as Iraq, the same faces coming again and again, the same families, Bushes and Clintons," he said. "They exported a copy of this system to us."


The Clintons?

Yes, it's hard to picture Iraqis being too excited over the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton.

Her husband presided over the death/murder of at least 500,000 Iraqi children due to his imposing sanctions.

And Hillary's gal pal Mad Maddie Albright, of course, infamously proclaimed the deaths were "worth it."



CHECK YOUR ZIPPER, YOUR BIAS IS SHOWING.  If you want to be taken seriously as a news outlet, maybe you stop slanting the news?  MEE 'reports':


Iraq's federal government will pay the salaries of the cash-strapped Kurdish region's employees if it halts its independent oil exports, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said on Monday.
Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region, facing a financial crisis due to low oil prices, has announced its employees will receive partial salaries until further notice and that months of unpaid wages will be considered loans to the government.

So the Baghdad-based government has been sitting on the federal money they are supposed to distribute to the KRG and now we miss that fact?


The Constitution does not allow for Abadi to refuse to pay out the federal monies.

The issue of the oil?  That can be resolved in a court of law.

The issue of distributing the federal monies is not in doubt.

Stanislav Ivanov (NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK) notes:


Besides, the central Iraqi government has been long sabotaging (in one way or another) the implementation of provisions of Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution prescribing a peaceful resolution of situations with “the disputed areas.” They also refrain (using various excuses) from passing a new law on hydrocarbons and are being consistently late with the transfer of budget funds allocated for the development of the Kurdish region, sometimes they transfer insufficient funds and ignore the needs of Kurdish Peshmerga, etc. 


And DEUTSCHE WELLE observes, "Transfer payments from the central government in Baghdad to the Kurdish regional government have been halted over a dispute. But the Kurdish region needs the money from Iraq as it cannot finance itself, especially because the budget has been strained by the battle against IS and care for refugees from affected areas."


Staying with the topic of the Kurds, let's drop back to Saturday's snapshot:






Liar and Barack's special envoy Brett McGurk appeared before Congress this week.


Special Envoy Brett McGurk:  We will not put a timeline on when Mosul will be liberated, but shaping operations to lay the groundwork for isolating ISIL inside the city have now begun. Kurdish Peshmerga forces two months ago liberated Sinjar, cutting off a highway that feeds Mosul from Syria. This operation was launched simultaneously to the SDF taking al Hawl, and began the bifurcation of northern Iraq from Syria – making it harder for ISIL to move material and supplies. These constricting operations will continue, and set the stage for political efforts to organize and coordinate liberation operations. My visit to Baghdad last week focused on ensuring close cooperation between political leaders, as well as Iraqi Security Force and Peshmerga commanders. Thanks to the great efforts of our Department of Defense colleagues, and our Ambassador in Baghdad, Stu Jones, there is now a joint command center established east of Mosul to synchronize all of these efforts going forward. Mosul will not be a D-Day like assault. Nor will we announce when key events are to take place. But ISIL will feel increasing pressure inside this city -- day-to-day and week-to-week. This slow and steady suffocation is now underway. We are killing ISIL members inside Mosul every week. We are also uprooting their sustainment network and have destroyed the cash storage sites used to pay, recruit, and train their fighters.



In June of 2014, the Islamic State seized Mosul.

The Baghdad-based government has been in no hurry to rescue the citizens or liberate the city.

On the global stage, Baghdad has sported its cowardice for all to see.

McGurk was appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday.  We covered some of the hearing in Wednesday's snapshot and in Thursday's snapshot.

We'll note this exchange.


US House Rep Paul Cook: Picking up on that question of the Turks and the Kurds, point blank, is there any hope for a separate homeland for the Kurdistan?  I don' think geography favors it.  But we've disappointed the Kurds so many times and after all of their fighting and everything else, particularly with the pressure with the Kurds -- I just don't . . . I think we're going to betray them once again.  Can you comment on that?


Special Envoy Brett McGurk:  Well the Kurds -- and I've dealt with my friends, the Kurds, in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq for almost a decade now.  And you're right, there's a historical memory of what happened to the Kurds after WWI which is something I think we all have to recognize and be sympathetic to.  Uhm, the Kurds in northern Syria we've developed a relationship with over the last 18 months or so in the counter-ISIL campaign.  I was able to go into northern Syria last week and meet a number of them.  And they have the same -- it's a very similar historical narrative.  Uhm, however, at this moment in time, creating new, independent states is not something that I think would be particularly stabilizing.  So when it comes to northern Iraq, and the Kurds, as I mentioned, I think before something like that can be discussed in a serious manner, first you have to get ISIS off the southern border, it's all jihad-istan on the entire southern border of northern Iraq and the Kurdistan region.  Second, the economic situation has to stabilize.  And, third, the political situation has to stabilize.  So right now, I think the Kurds of northern Iraq, uh, and recognize this.  Nobody is trying to do the impossible and create a unified Iraq that is a glowing democracy.  But a federal Iraq, which is defined in their constitution, which empowers local leaders, empowers the Sunnis in the provinces, empowers the Kurds in northern Iraq, empowers the Shia in southern Iraq is something that's realistic, is something that is in Iraq's constitution and something that we support.


For those paying attention, it appears the Kurds are about to get stabbed in the back yet again.  And, for the record, the Iraqi constitution also has a measure for independence but when provinces attempt to utilize that the US government suddenly has no interest in defending the country's constitution.



And for those paying attention, today's US State Dept press briefing and the remarks of spokesperson Mark C. Toner.


QUESTION: Iraq?

MR TONER: Iraq.

QUESTION: I have a question about the recent decision by the Kurdistan region’s President Barzani that the region is going to hold a referendum by November 2016. What is the U.S. Government position on that?

MR TONER: You’re talking about a referendum for Kurdish independence?

QUESTION: Yeah, self-determination.

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I mean, we’ve been very clear, and our policy remains unchanged. We support an Iraq that is unified, federal, pluralistic, and democratic.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I think we’re all aware of that. That’s not something new. But this is, like, new development. This is, like, almost happening. There is a specific date for that. And I think everybody – everybody knows that what the result of that referendum would be.

MR TONER: I mean, we – look, I mean, the Kurdistan region has been under tremendous pressure, both economically but certainly from the presence of ISIL [. . .]. We recognize that that has put pressure on the local government, but that doesn’t – and frankly, we’ve been working diligently through Iraqi command and control to provide them with the necessary tools and assistance that they need to fight [the Islamic State]. But that doesn’t change our overall policy that we believe it’s in Iraq’s best interest that it remain unified and democratic.

QUESTION: Have you tried to talk to the Kurdish leaders, like, maybe to convince them to be patient and --

MR TONER: I mean, they’re – certainly, we engage with Kurdish authorities all the time and they’re very aware of our feelings about this and our policy about this.

QUESTION: One more question, sorry.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure, go ahead. No worries.

QUESTION: What do think this would have – like, do you think this would have any impact on the war against ISIS given the fact that the Kurdish Peshmerga are, like, the most, like, influential force on the ground?


MR TONER: I don’t like to address hypotheticals. We’re aware of this referendum. Our position is that we think that Iraq should remain unified in the face of the threat from [the Islamic State]. We believe the new Iraqi Government has made an effort and has made progress in unifying the country and creating a more pluralistic society. Obviously, those efforts need to continue – excuse me. And as you point out, the Kurds have been – Kurdish forces have been extremely effective and brave against [the Islamic State] in every effort that they’ve encountered them, and we hope that that cooperation can continue. And our support for them will continue.



It was only a matter of time before some idiot at the State Dept thought they had a right to dictate what Iraqis could and couldn't do.

And the plan, on Saturday, was to wait for it to happen and to walk through on this.

But we're going a different way instead.

A friend who used to practice international law (he's now  a judge) raised a more important issue.

Iraq has no Constitution.

Passed in 2005, this was a temporary measure.

The only thing that would make it permanent?

Implementing Article 140 by, as outlined within the Constitution, December 31, 2007.


The failure to implement that article means the Iraqi Constitution can be considered voided.



NONE DARE CALL IT REPORTING

or

THE JUDY MILLER AWARD GOES TO . . .

Anthony Deutsch (REUTERS) insists that "Islamic State militants attacked Kurdish forces in Iraq with mustard gas last year, in the first known use of chemical weapons in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a diplomat said, after tests by the global chemical arms watchdog."

Chemical arms?

A single source?

Unnamed!

It's as though Judith Miller has moved over to REUTERS.

Could the Islamic State have done what they're now accused of?

Probably.

They are a terrorist organization.

But why the need to hide behind an anonymous source.

And why does it feel so much like propaganda created to inflame?

And hasn't this reporter being curiously close to a megaphone for the government at other times as well?


Blissfully unaware, he Tweets:

1. Anthony Deutsch ‏@anotherdeutsch Feb 15

   Exclusive: Samples confirm Islamic State used mustard gas in Iraq - diplomat http://reut.rs/1PWIJ5F  via @Reuters

   View summary
   

   5 retweets 1 like

Ay-yi-yi



I wrote these words for everyone
Who struggles in their youth
Who won't accept deception
Instead of what is truth
It seems we lose the game,
Before we even start to play
Who made these rules? We're so confused
Easily led astray
Let me tell ya that
Everything is everything
Everything is everything
After winter, must come spring
Everything is everything
-- "Everything Is Everything," written by Lauryn Hill and Johari Newton, first appears on her THE MISEDUCATION OF LAURYN HILL.



The Iraq War continues and, with it, the violence.  AFP notes that a "technical problem" is responsible for both the crash of an Iraqi military helicopter and the lives of 9 people.



And the US Defense Dept announced/claimed/asserted/bragged:



Strikes in Iraq
Rocket artillery and fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 20 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Baghdadi, a strike destroyed seven ISIL rocket rails and an ISIL weapons cache.

-- Near Qaim, nine strikes struck an ISIL improvised explosive device facility, an ISIL logistics facility, an ISIL staging area, two ISIL internet cafes, two ISIL headquarters and an ISIL media headquarters.

-- Near Fallujah, a strike destroyed two ISIL vehicles, two ISIL heavy machine guns and an ISIL bunker.

-- Near Kirkuk, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL weapons cache and three ISIL fighting positions.

-- Near Mosul, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL bunker.

-- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL front-end loader.

-- Near Sinjar, two strikes destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

-- Near Tal Afar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL bunker.


Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.





iraq
the washington post
loveday morris

There's nothing liberating about Beyonce

I could care less about the 'politics' of her half-time show.  Personally, I didn't see politics in Beyonce's performance.  I saw an attempt -- like Madonna does -- to appropriate something, to use something (the Black Panthers in this case).

She used them like an accent pillow to dress up her thin song.

And her lyrics are the only thing thin about her.

I'm sick of hearing what a 'feminist' Beyonce is.

There's nothing liberating about an overweight woman squeezing herself into a corset to create a tiny waist and the hips erupting below the corset.

That's not healthy at all.

(It's also not attractive.)

When Beyonce can get comfortable with her own size, I might see her as liberated.

Until then she's just teasing cock and coochie.



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

Thursday, February 11, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, War Hawk Hillary Clinton continues to be pushed on her vote for the Iraq War, her War Hawk buddies also becomes an issue, and much more.



Let's start with the ongoing Iraq War .  Specifically, let's start with the decision to support it to begin with.


Yesterday, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on Iraq, Syria and Libya.  Appearing before the Committee was President Barack Obama's Special Envoy Brett McGurk.  The original decision to support the Iraq War was raised.  First . . .


US House Rep Dana Rohrabacher: You know, frankly, we Republicans made a mistake when we backed our president when he said: "We have to get rid of Saddam Hussein."  And frankly it looks like to me that all of this chaos and confusion that you're describing today that is unfortunately in your lap to  try to correct started when we made a mistake [that] 'we have to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he's a bad guy and he's committing crimes against his own people and that's destabilizing the whole area.' [. . .]  


Secondly . . .


US House Rep Gerry Connolly:  I certainly want to concur with my friend from California and his critique of the mistake by Republicans in supporting the reckless foreign policy of George W. Bush.  And I certainly want to associate myself with those remarks.

US House Rep Dan Rohrbacher: Absolutely. 



Those darn Republicans, supporting, in 2002, the move to go to war on Iraq.


Darn Republicans.

Paul Kawika Martin ‏@PaulKawika 2h2 hours ago

.@BernieSanders wise vote against #Iraq War is one reason why @PeaceAction endorsed him over @HillaryClinton #democraticdebate

5 retweets 5 likes

What?

Oh, right.

Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

And she's not a Republican -- not anymore, right?

She was on stage tonight in Milawukee (wearing another ridiculous outfit -- is 'business professional' just beyond her understanding?).  It was the Democratic Party debate, the latest one.  This one hosted by PBS and THE PBS NEWSHOUR with news anchors Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff actings as moderators while Hillary debated Senator Bernie Sanders.

Wouldn't you know it?  Iraq was an issue.

Specifically, Hillary's vote for the United States to go to war with Iraq.

This is from the transcript provided by THE WASHINGTON POST (which is annotated online).




SANDERS: Let me just say this. What a president of the United States has got to do -- and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility -- is to, A, make certain that we keep our people safe, that we work with allies around the world to protect...
... president of the United States has got to do, and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility, is to, A, make certain that we keep our people safe. That we work with allies around the world to protect democratic values. That we do all that we can to create a world of peace and prosperity.
I voted against the war in Iraq because I listened very carefully to what President Bush and Vice President Cheney had to say and I didn't believe them. And if you go to my Web site, berniesanders.com, what you find is not only going to help lead the opposition to that war, but much of what I feared would happen when I spoke on the floor of the House, in fact, did happen in terms of the instability that occurred.
Now I think an area in kind of a vague way, or not so vague, where Secretary Clinton and I disagree is the area of regime change. Look, the truth is that a powerful nation like the United States, certainly working with our allies, we can overthrow dictators all over the world.
And God only knows Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. We could overthrow Assad tomorrow if we wanted to. We got rid of Gadhafi. But the point about foreign policy is not just to know that you can overthrow a terrible dictator, it's to understand what happens the day after.
And in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, working with some other countries, did get rid of a terrible dictator named Gadhafi. But what happened is a political vacuum developed. ISIS came in, and now occupies significant territory in Libya, and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a terrorist foothold.
But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years where the United States has been involved in overthrowing governments. Mossadegh back in 1953. Nobody knows who Mossadegh was, democratically-elected prime minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British. And as a result of that, the shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. The result of that, you had the Iranian Revolution coming in, and that is where we are today. Unintended consequences.
So I believe as president I will look very carefully about unintended consequences. I will do everything I can to make certain that the United States and our brave men and women in the military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.


(APPLAUSE)


CLINTON: If I could just respond. Two points. One, Senator Sanders voted in 1998 on what I think is fair to call a regime change resolution with respect to Iraq, calling for the end of Saddam Hussein's regime.
He voted in favor of regime change with Libya, voted in favor of the Security Council being an active participate in setting the parameters for what we would do, which of course we followed through on.
I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS in 2016. It's very important we focus on the threats we face today, and that we understand the complicated and dangerous world we are in.
When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the commander-in- chief. And it's important that people really look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are, and who is best prepared for dealing with them.
As we all remember, Senator Obama, when he ran against me, was against the war in Iraq. And yet when he won, he turned to me, trusting my judgment, my experience, to become secretary of state.
I was very honored to be asked to do that and very honored to serve with him those first four years.


(APPLAUSE)


SANDERS: Judy, if I can, there is no question, Secretary Clinton and I are friends, and I have a lot of respect for her, that she has enormous experience in foreign affairs. Secretary of state for four years. You've got a bit of experience, I would imagine.
But judgment matters as well. Judgment matters as well. And she and I looked at the same evidence coming from the Bush administration regarding Iraq. I lead the opposition against it. She voted for it.
But more importantly, in terms of this Libya resolution that you have noted before, this was a virtually unanimous consent. Everybody voted for it wanting to see Libya move toward democracy, of course we all wanted to do that.


SANDERS: That is very different than talking about specific action for regime change, which I did not support.




"I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS in 2016," Hillary grumped.


Nor is saying "I made a mistake" owning your destructive vote.

Hillary has refused to address the needs of the Iraqi people.

Yet again, she insisted she was a champion of women -- those who didn't claim to sleep with her husband, to be raped by her husband or to be harassed by her husband.

Well no woman from Iraq has ever claimed Bill Clinton made unwanted advances so what's Hillary's excuse for do nothing to help the women of Iraq?

She's the woman who calls herself a champion of women.  She's the woman who now says her vote for the Iraq War was a mistake.

A mistake?

Wearing that ugly canary yellow top that looked like it was from the Chairman Mao collection to a professional debate was a mistake.

The birth defects in Iraq?  That's not a mistake.  That's a tragedy brought on by a crime.

What's Hillary going to do about that?


Nothing,

For nearly 8 years now, she's given lip service to "I made a mistake" but she's never once explained how she would correct that mistake, what she's doing to atone for it.

We're all supposed to be thrilled that Hillary can now call her vote to endorse a criminal war of aggression was a "mistake."

Hillary's a neocon.

It's why she made Victoria Nuland the spokesperson for the US State Dept and why she made Nuland's husband Robert Kagan an advisor.


Here's Leslie Kelb writing at DEMOCRACY JOURNAL:


Robert Kagan, the neoconservative extraordinaire, sees this shift as an opportunity to change the political center of gravity and is trying to shape the new consensus. In his latest book, The World America Made (2012), and other writings, he is reaching across the decades-old political abyss to tempted Democrats. And there, he has found Hillary Clinton, the unannounced Democratic nominee for President, among others, carefully reaching back. This potential embrace on international matters is not beyond the means of such experienced players. Foreign-policy alignments have shallower roots than domestic policy differences, and historically, the parties have enjoyed considerable overlapping of hawks and doves, activists, and de facto isolationists. Moreover, these positions can change on a dime.
Kagan’s courtship of Clinton has been quite open. “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” he told The New York Times in June. “[I]t’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that.” He himself tellingly prefers the term “liberal interventionist.”
Kagan has his reasons for saying this publicly, not least the shifting sands of his own Republican Party. The Obama years have bared new conflicts among conservatives, particularly between the majority that still backs strong U.S. military responses to terrorist threats in the Mideast and a vocal minority of self-styled Tea Party libertarians who share left-wing Democrats’ disdain for foreign military entanglements. Accordingly, Kagan is hedging his bets by trying to fashion a new home, virtually constructing it himself—a de facto coalition of activist Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans in this ad hoc group are unlikely to campaign for Clinton, but they will be careful about attacking her foreign-policy views and will be well positioned to support her national-security positions if she wins.
[. . .]
For much of this period of neoconservative ascendance, Robert Kagan has been their intellectual tribune. This is why his courtship of Clinton is so interesting. Kagan’s open flirtation with Clinton has been coyly accepted and even reciprocated. While continuing to clutch the liberals’ new priorities like women’s rights, democracy, and climate change in her left hand, she is extending her right hand to the hawks. Few failed to notice when she selected Kagan to sit on her bipartisan State Department advisory group or when she picked his wife, Victoria Nuland, a very accomplished diplomat in her own right, as her spokeswoman. And it’s no accident that the much-admired former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, a friend to the Clintons and Kagans, keeps Kagan on at the venerable Brookings Institution as a senior fellow.



She calls her vote a 'mistake' yet she continues to pal around with and seek the counsel of those who advocated for that 'mistake.'

Hillary's a liar.

And who she hangs with says a great deal about her lack of ethics.

Back to tonight's debate:




SANDERS: Judy, one area very briefly...


WOODRUFF: Just a final word.


SANDERS: Where the secretary and I have a very profound difference, in the last debate -- and I believe in her book -- very good book, by the way -- in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.

(APPLAUSE)

I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger's actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some 3 million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.

(APPLAUSE)


IFILL: Secretary Clinton? 


CLINTON: Well, I know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is.


SANDERS: Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger. That's for sure.


CLINTON: That's fine. That's fine.


(LAUGHTER)


You know, I listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. I think it is fair to say, whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are, that with respect to China, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up China and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of China is an incredibly useful relationship for the United States of America.


(APPLAUSE)


So if we want to pick and choose -- and I certainly do -- people I listen to, people I don't listen to, people I listen to for certain areas, then I think we have to be fair and look at the entire world, because it's a big, complicated world out there.


SANDERS: It is.


CLINTON: And, yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the United States.


(APPLAUSE)


SANDERS: I find -- I mean, it's just a very different, you know, historical perspective here. Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. Not everybody remembers that. You do. I do. The domino theory, you know, if Vietnam goes, China, da, da, da, da, da, da, da. That's what he talked about, the great threat of China.

And then, after the war, this is the guy who, in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up relations with China, and now pushed various type of trade agreements, resulting in American workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to China. The terrible, authoritarian, Communist dictatorship he warned us about, now he's urging companies to shut down and move to China. Not my kind of guy. 



Henry Kissinger made have played footsie with the likes of Gloria Steinem (another Hillary supporter) but he's better known for being a caged American citizen.

By which I mean that Henry is not free range.

He can't travel to this country or that country for fear that they might extradite him and he might go on trial at the Hague for War Crimes.

His War Crimes are too numerous to offer even a sweeping overview.

Instead, we'll just focus on Chile.

In 1998, he faced criticism for his War Crimes.  Bill and Hillary stood by him.


Here's Martin McLaughlin (WSWS):



If Augusto Pinochet deserves detention, trial and punishment for mass murder, then what about his American controllers--Henry Kissinger, then-CIA director Richard Helms and other US government officials who inspired, directed and supported the 1973 military coup in Chile?
The official American reaction to the detention of Pinochet has been sympathetic to the former dictator. The Clinton administration is opposing his extradition out of concern that a public trial in Spain would bring to light the extensive involvement of US intelligence agencies in Pinochet's bloody deeds.
Pinochet's seizure of power on September 11, 1973 was the product of a protracted US campaign of political manipulation and destabilization in Chile. In 1964 the Johnson administration poured tens of millions of dollars into a covert campaign to insure the election of Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei as president, over the Socialist Party candidate Salvador Allende.
In 1970, with Frei ineligible to succeed himself and Allende the favorite to win the next election, Chile became a problem for the Nixon administration. The super-secret 40 Committee, a high-level body chaired by Henry Kissinger, with representatives from the State Department, CIA and Pentagon, decided that a massive electoral intervention would likely spark a backlash. US Ambassador Edward Korry urgently recommended a CIA covert operation to prepare a preemptive military coup.
Kissinger declared, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." But he and CIA Director Helms blocked the proposed pre-election coup as unworkable. More time was needed, they argued.
Allende won the election on a reformist program, but his victory sparked a mass movement of the working class and poor peasants which had immense revolutionary potential. Allende and his Stalinist backers in the Chilean Communist Party spent the next three years restraining, discouraging and disorienting the mass movement, blocking any decisive challenge to the Chilean ruling class and American imperialism, while the right-wing and fascist elements prepared their counterattack. During this period there were six unsuccessful right-wing coup attempts, most of them with direct American aid.
The US involvement in coup planning began even before Allende's election victory, under the codename FUBELT, with action plans prepared for Kissinger's consideration. One group of officers working under CIA direction carried out the assassination of General Rene Schneider, a pro-Allende officer, in an unsuccessful attempt to spark a full-scale coup before Allende could take office.

A CIA cable from October 16, 1970, released under the Freedom of Information Act, spells out US government objectives: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup.... We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and -American hand be well hidden."


In 2002, Jonathan Franklin and Duncan Campbell (GUARDIAN) noted:



Henry Kissinger may face extradition proceedings in connection with the role of the United States in the 1973 military coup in Chile.
The former US secretary of state is wanted for questioning as a witness in the investigation into the events surrounding the overthrow of the socialist president, Salvador Allende, by General Augusto Pinochet.
It focuses on CIA involvement in the coup, whether US officials passed lists of leftwing Americans in Chile to the military and whether the US embassy failed to assist Americans deemed sympathetic to the deposed government.
Chile's Judge Juan Guzman is so frustrated by the lack of cooperation by Mr Kissinger that he is now considering an extradition request to force him to come to Chile and testify in connection with the death of the American film-maker and journalist Charles Horman, who was killed by the military days after the coup.
Horman's story was told in the 1982 Costa-Gavras film, Missing, starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek.
Judge Guzman is investigating whether US officials passed the names of suspected leftwing Americans to Chilean military authorities. Declassified documents have now revealed that such a list existed. Sergio Corvalan, a Chilean lawyer, said that he could not divulge the "dozens" of names on the list.
At the time of his death, Horman was investigating the murder of Rene Schneider, the chief of staff in the Chilean army whose support for Allende and the constitution was seen as an obstacle to the coup.



Time and again, Hillary sides with the wrong people -- Kagan, Kissinger, Mad Maddie Albright.

It's a pattern with her.

She repeatedly befriends people whose actions demonstrate contempt for human life and for participatory democracy.

Her addiction to regime change is rooted in the belief system she shared with Albright, Kagan and Kissinger.

 .

In tonight's debate, she insisted, "I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS in 2016. It's very important we focus on the threats we face today, and that we understand the complicated and dangerous world we are in.  When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the commander-in- chief. And it's important that people really look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are, and who is best prepared for dealing with them."


Now she's claiming she's fit to be commander-in-chief?


She who would send US troops into any war at a moment's notice, without reading intel or carefully vetting a decision of what is the best option?

And should she become president and send thousands more US troops to their deaths, will she blame that "mistake" on Bully Boy Bush as well?


The Iraq War she endorsed and sought continues to this day.



Today, the US Defense Dept announced/claimed/asserted/bragged:



Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted 13 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Albu Hayat, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Kirkuk, a strike destroyed eight ISIL fighting positions.

-- Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL tunnel.

-- Near Mosul, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL checkpoint, seven ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL assembly area.

-- Near Ramadi, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL bunker and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Albu Hayat, one strike struck inoperable coalition equipment, denying ISIL access in support of coalition operations.


Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.







iraq
pbs
the newshour
judy woodruff
gwen ifill
duncan campbell

Oh, grow up, Ms.

Hiding behind an African-American woman, Ms.' blog goes after Spike Lee.

The writer is offended that Chi-Raq has women withholding sex in an effort to effect change.

Seriously?

It's a take on Aristophanes' Lysistrata.

The whole point of that play is the sex strike.

So what was Spike supposed to do?

Toss out that key point?

Their idiots.

And Spike can be called out for sexism.

But next time, deal with someone who knows his actual work and isn't just repeating what others have said about She's Got To Have It.

Or better yet, don't make the first time you note his film -- starring a number of African-American women -- an effort to slam him.

Here's one more thing.

The idiot notes Netflix will be streaming the film next month.

Hey, idiot, Amazon Prime started streaming the film this month.

If you're an Amazon Prime member, you can watch it for free right now.



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

Wednesday, February 10, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, Hillary Clinton continues to embrace destruction and death, Brett McGurk spins to Congress, and much more.

Starting with US politics, yesterday Hillary Clinton suffered a stunning loss in New Hampshire as voters in that state's Democratic Party primary overwhelmingly chose Senator Bernie Sanders while rejecting her to be the party's presidential nominee.

Among her problems with voters?  Her 2002 vote for the Iraq War.

While Hillary eventually would term the vote a "mistake," that only created more problems for her.

When most people were taught by parents and/or guardians about mistakes, they were taught not only to admit to their mistake but to make some good faith effort to fix the mistake.

Hillary keeps insisting she has some fabled foreign policy knowledge.

But if her vote for the war on Iraq was a mistake -- and if she's so smart -- where is the effort to make good on her mistake? 

ICRC Verified account ‏@ICRC Feb 8

Abandoned buildings, schools & makeshift camps, these are the places thousands of kids call home in #Iraq today.

57 retweets 22 likes

She's done nothing to help or advocate for the children pictured above.

She has, however, used her own status -- recent status -- as a grandmother to campaign on.  It bit her in the ass when she was insisting she's just like an "abuela." She's also repeated used her status as a grandmother to insist she'd be a better leader.

Adam Carlson (PEOPLE) quoted Hillary stating, "It will affect my being, not just my thinking. [. . .] Having that next generation right there and thinking about everything you want to do both personally but in our cases, publicly and professionally, to give that child the best chance in life to be all he or she can be, that is profoundly moving to me."

Is it profoundly moving to her?

It's a tiny and limited sort of 'profound,' one that doesn't go beyond her own family.

A mistake, she insists, she made but she's not doing anything to help the children in Iraq with birth defects.

 

"Findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases," says a recent scientific report on the incidence of birth defects in Fallujah [Dr Samira Alani]

 That's from Al Jazeera.



 This is from Justice for the Babies of Fallujah:

In 2014, Dahr Jamail (TRUTH OUT) reported on the increase in birth defects and how "Iraqi doctors and prominent scientists" argue this is the result of the US using Depleted Uranium:


It is estimated that the United States used 350 tons of DU munitions in Iraq during the 1991 war, and 1,200 tons during its 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation.
Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the first Gulf War in 1991, the country's rate of cancer cases was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. Current estimates show the trend continuing.
The actual rate of cancer and other diseases is likely to be much higher than even these figures suggest, due to a lack of adequate documentation, research and reporting of cases.



Frederick Reese (MINT NEWS PRESS) also reported on the tragedy:


According to Iraqi government statistics, the rate of cancer in the country has skyrocketed from 40 per 100,000 people prior to the First Gulf War in 1991, to 800 per 100,000 in 1995, to at least 1,600 per 100,000 in 2005.
The culprit behind all of these health issues is depleted uranium, a byproduct of uranium enrichment. With a mass fraction a third of what fissile uranium would have, depleted uranium emits less alpha radiation — up to 60 percent less than natural uranium, according to the U.S. Department of Defense. This “relative” safety offered a rationale for many nations — particularly, the U.S. — to put the waste material to use.


Hillary insists she made a mistake and should be forgiven for that mistake.

But she's made no effort to make good on her mistake.


She insists she's fueled in her motivation by being a grandmother but she has no concern for the children of Iraq.


Her "mistake" cost lives.

She's given lip service to the issue of Iraq, she's made no real effort to make amends for her vote.


Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama continues bombing Iraq to bring about 'peace.'  Today, the US Defense Dept announced/claimed/bragged:


Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted 18 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Baghdadi, a strike destroyed an ISIL supply cache.

-- Near Huwayjah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb and two ISIL vehicles.

-- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Haditha, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Kirkuk, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Mosul, five strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed 15 ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL checkpoint.

-- Near Ramadi, four strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL heavy machine gun position, an ISIL vehicle bomb facility and cratered an ISIL-used road.

-- Near Sinjar, three strikes destroyed three ISIL fighting positions and suppressed two separate ISIL mortar positions.


Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.


Barack's been bombing Iraq from the air since August of 2014.

Nothing's really changed.

Before he started bombing Iraq, Barack was stating that the only answer to Iraq's crises was a political solution.

However, the US has done damn little to ease the government of Iraq towards a political solution.

It just been bomb, bomb and bomb again.

And the persecution of the Sunni people in Iraq by the government has continued.

At FPIF today, Peter Certo observes:

The simple fact is that there’s a huge population of Sunni Arabs in particular who’ve been totally abandoned by the political regimes of Mesopotamia. In Iraq, Shiites have consolidated power in Baghdad, while Alawites and other Syrian minorities have hunkered down in the regime-controlled portions of Syria. Meanwhile Kurds on both sides of the border have coalesced into their own quasi-autonomous regions.

And today in DC, US House Rep Eliot Engel declared, "I have one final question.  I have been having discussions -- in fact, the Chairman and I have been having discussions -- with some of our Sunni Arab friends and they express to us frustration at the United States not being more of a player that's deeply involved, that we seem to be reluctant to be -- to be involved.  They paint a picture of the fact that they're ready to come forward, if we come forward, if we lead, they're ready to do it.    They describe a reluctance on the part of the United States to get involved."

He was speaking at the House Foreign Relations Committee to Barack's Special Envoy Brett McGurk.  Engel is the Ranking Member of the Committee, US House Rep Ed Royce is the Chair.

Brett's generic non-response to Engel's question isn't worth noting.

Instead, we'll note this exchange from today's hearing.

US House Rep Ron DeSantis: Mr. McGurk, you just said that there will still be a global jihadist problem and I agree with that [if the Islamic State is defeated].  And I notice that in your written testimony, that there was not any reference explicitly to either Iran or Hezbollah -- particularly with respect to the destabilizing role they both play in Iraq and in Syria.  You know, they've murdered Sunni civilians and Assad obviously drives people, Sunni Arabs, who if the choice is between a militant Shi'ite force or government backed by Iran or ISIS -- which is at least Sunni -- many of them are driven to ISIS.  So is the exclusion of Iran's contribution to the problem deliberate or is it just something that you omitted?

Special Envoy Brett McGurk:  No, certainly not.  Let me -- uh, let me take it on directly.  Uhm, you now when-when Mosul fell in the summer of 2014, Grand Ayatollah [Ali al-] Sistani in Najaf issued a fatwa saying 'everybody rise up and protect the country.'  And it was a really critical moment and had he not done that, I think that it would have  been very hard  to check what ISIL was doing because they were on a rampage and  caused a massive panic in the country.  You had about 80,000 volunteers kind of rise up and join the ranks to defend Iraq. Most of them in those early days are Shia from the south, most of them are nationalists, they answer to the government.  But there is a segment of them -- you know, maybe 10 to 15,000 --  who are actually answerable to militias who are better  controlled by Iran. And this is a huge concern for us, it's a huge concern for the government of Iraq and it's a huge concern for prime minister [Haider al-] Abadi.  Prime Minister Abadi, when he was here in Washington, said publicly that if Iran is operating a militia on Iraqi soil outside the command of the Iraqi government that would be a hostile act against Iraq.  So he has been very clear about this. When we see abuses and violations of human rights, the government of Iraq has acted.  Most recently, there were reports of some Shia militia violence in Diyala Province -- which has always been a hotbed of extremism on both sides of the sectarian divide.  Prime Minister Abadi went to the site twice.  Just last week, they arrested nine individuals from some of these militias as part of that investigation.  So this is a serious problem, it's something that we're focused on all of the time.  But we don't want to paint all of these volunteers, many of whom are Shi'ite, in the same brush because that simply wouldn't be true -- 

US House Rep Ron DeSantis:  Well what about something like in Al Anbar Province?  Yeah, there's been -- the administration has touted some of the advances in places like Ramadi but my understanding is that is powered a lot by Shi'ite forces -- including some of the Iranian backed forces. And so what are you doing to empower the Sunni tribal forces and the Sunni elders?  Because it seems to me that driving ISIS out of places like Ramadi is obviously something that's desirable but the notion that those Sunni Arabs are going to be happy living under forces or a government that they see as being dominated by Iran and Shia?  That's going to probably be a tough sell.

Special Envoy Brett McGurk:  So -- very much agree with you.  So when it came to Ramadi, it was the government of Iraq's decision to ensure that that operation was conducted by the Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi counter-terrorism forces, and local Sunni tribal fighters -- 

US House Rep Ron DeSantis:  So they were integrated with the security forces --

Special Envoy Brett McGurk: They were integrated in the campaign and the Popular Mobilization Forces [Shi'ite militias] from the Shi'ite side of the street were not a part of that campaign.  And, uh, that was very important because we wanted to show that the Iraqi security forces can do that and because what's so important -- Sunni or Shia -- is that local forces who know their territory and know their neighborhood and who know what it's like, who know the streets and alleys, you've got locals invested in the fight.  So you've got locals now, we've got about 10,000 of these tribal forces, they're invested in the fight, they're getting paid, I gave figures earlier in my testimony.  But you know -- but we have full support from the new government in Iraq and Prime Minister Abadi.  We have full support from the governor of Anbar Province, Governor [Sohaib] al-Rawi -- and they're working closely with us.  And we've got two platforms in Anbar province.  One at al-Asad airbase and one at al-Taqaddum air base where we're working every day with the Iraqi security forces and these fighters to get them in the fight.  And, you know, they're making real gains.  They were just on defense, now they're on offense, they're doing operations, so it's-it's -- they're moving the right way.

Not everyone agreed with Brett's fairy tale spin today.

For example . . .

1. Rami ‏@RamiAlLolah Feb 9

   #USA extended their support to the unstoppable sectarian Shiite militias in #Iraq with multiple M1 Abrams tanks..

   View media

   55 retweets 17 likes

iraq
truthout
dahr jamail