Thursday, December 28, 2017

And they go after Jill


From Wednesday, that's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Christmas 2017."

Hillary and her fan club have done so much damage.

Mike Whitney (CounterPunch) notes:

A “Russian asset”? Jill Stein is a “Russian asset”?
How long are American liberals going to put up with this bullshit?  How long before they wash the mud from their eyes and acknowledge what should be as plain as the nose on their face; that their precious investigation of Donald Trump is nothing more than a witch hunt designed to intimidate or destroy political rivals?
The persecution of Jill Stein strips away the facade once and for all exposing Russia-gate as a complete fraud that is being used to exact revenge on the adversaries of Hillary Clinton and her reprobate friends. Even the New York Times admits as much.
Why is there still no evidence of  wrongdoing after more than a year of relentless, non-stop investigations?  Why are there just accusations, allegations and baseless claims?
Take a hard look at the Stein case and you’ll understand why. The meat-puppet senators who are conducting these wretched show trials don’t give a damn about the truth. They know the case against Stein is completely fabricated. They also know they can carry on with complete impunity because  the big money powerbrokers who pull their strings and order them about, are beyond the reach of the any legal accountability. That’s what’s really really going on, the fatcat honchos behind the scenes are just settling scores for Hillary’s lost election. It’s payback time for the Clinton Mafia.

She lost.

But she and her fan club refuse to face reality.

Now they're trying to go after Jill.

They're shameless.

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

Thursday, December 28, 2017.   Hayder al-Abadi goes after the Palestinians while continue to work his grudge against the Kurds, the Sunnis, basically everyone.  And this is how he behaves in 'victory'?

RUDAW reports:

Iraq has extended the ban on international flights to and from the Kurdistan Region until February 28, 2018, a day after Iraqi Interior Minister Qasim al-Araji was quoted as saying that he would request the Iraqi prime minister end the flight ban.

KRG’s acting Minister of Transport Mawlud Bawamurad told Rudaw that the extended flight ban affects both Erbil and Sulaimani international airports.

“It is unfortunate that the Iraqi government issued this decision while we were expecting talks to begin to solve the problems,” Bawamurad told Rudaw.

It was supposed to be a trail of victories.  Defeat the Islamic State (or just claim you have) and march proudly into the May elections.

It's not really working out that way, however.

Hayder al-Abadi, ruled by vengeance, refuses to uplift -- let alone lead.

In so-called 'victory,' he exposes just how petty he is -- and what a danger he has become to Iraq.

Rachel Avraham (WASHINGTON TIMES) notes:

From the very onset, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi did not treat the Kurds as citizens of his country with equal rights. Article 131 of the Iraqi Constitution proclaimed that the Kurds were entitled to an equitable share of Iraq’s revenues and declared that the Iraqi central government had an obligation to fund Kurdish Peshmerga Forces, who are responsible for securing their areas.  
However, the central Iraqi government not only did not send the necessary funds and weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga so that they could fight against ISIS more efficiently.  They also refused to send Kurdish Civil Servants their monthly salaries. This forced the Kurds to rely upon oil revenues in order to cover their own expenses because the Iraqi central government was not living up to their end of the bargain according to the Iraqi Constitution.
From the very onset, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi did not treat the Kurds as citizens of his country with equal rights. Article 131 of the Iraqi Constitution proclaimed that the Kurds were entitled to an equitable share of Iraq’s revenues and declared that the Iraqi central government had an obligation to fund Kurdish Peshmerga Forces, who are responsible for securing their areas.  
However, the central Iraqi government not only did not send the necessary funds and weapons to the Kurdish Peshmerga so that they could fight against ISIS more efficiently.  They also refused to send Kurdish Civil Servants their monthly salaries. This forced the Kurds to rely upon oil revenues in order to cover their own expenses because the Iraqi central government was not living up to their end of the bargain according to the Iraqi Constitution.

The tensions only grow worse between Erbil and Baghdad.

During a weekly press conference in Erbil, challenged Iraqi PM to address the ongoing violations against the Kurdish population in .

Karzan Sulaivany (KURDISTAN 24) reports:

“Abadi claims that he is preoccupied with the people of the Kurdistan Region’s best interests, and I ask him, if you really are keen on that, why don’t you investigate what is happening in Tuz Khurmatu?” the KRG Prime Minister stated.
The security situation in Tuz Khurmatu drastically deteriorated since the Iranian-backed Shia Hashd al-Shaabi militias took control of the city, which is home to a mix of Kurds, Turkmen, and Arab minorities.
The militias have been launching mortar attacks on several Kurdish villages east and north of Khurmatu since the start of December. 

Hayder's the one who made the militias part of the Iraqi security forces.

Hayder was installed by the US in the second half of 2014.  He's had over three years to address the problems facing Iraq.  He's refused to do so.

If you want to see stupidity and a crime against humanity, click here to read Scott Peterson's latest ravings.  THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR has become a very sad joke as a result of the Iraq War.  This is not limited to the way they disgraced themselves to take a kidnapping and portray the survivor as 'girl reporter.'  (Is it any wonder that the woman left journalism and became a fire fighter?  In real time, we were calling that novelization of her kidnapping shameful -- because it was.)  Not content to be a sexist tabloid, they went on to lie in editorial after editorial (including pulling out the false claim that, in the US, people were spitting on veterans).

But Scott Peterson's piece today really sets a new standard for low.

The Sunnis, Scott gleefully announces, are being forced to make nice with the Shia.  They have to, he insists, because so many Sunnis are refugees.

Does Scott get what he's describing or is he too high on war?  He's applauding the destruction of people's homes and lives so that they are left powerless because, he hopes, in that powerless moment, they may be forced to do the bidding of those who have persecuted them.

Whatever Scott's doing, it's not journalism.

And you grasp that very quickly as he builds his article around an analyst who is never named.

An analyst.

He can't name an analyst.

He can repeat the analyst's assertions but he can't name the analyst.

Readers have never heard of or from the analyst before but we're supposed to take this person's word because . . . well, Scott did!

If Scott Peterson's done anything with his long years of misreporting on Iraq, it's been to make very clear that Scott is never to be trusted.

That's especially clear today.

The Sunnis will not be coerced despite what Scott and his analyst (is that what he calls his cock?  maybe this was just one long wank of Scott's?) maintain.

The Sunnis of Anbar have had little to no help (and a lot of hurt) from the Baghdad government.  They aren't on the ropes.

That Scott needs them to be goes to his own issues.

The Iraqi government continues to persecute the Sunnis.

Which is why the US military remains on the ground in Iraq: To prop up the government or 'government' that the US government created.

Without the US military, Hayder et al would crumble.

Never forget that it was the fear that Baghdad was about to be seized that led to Barack rushing more US troops into Iraq.

It wasn't Mosul being taken and occupied.

What did the US government care about Mosul or the people living there.

But from the start, the US-created government had to be protected.  Hence the Green Zone in the earliest days of the war.

And the US repeatedly allows its installed 'prime ministers' get away with targeting one group after another.

Sunday, we noted:

And while Christmas takes place, Hayder al-Abadi and Baghdad work overtime to deprive others of rights.

removes language from the Food Ration Cards. Another violation of Article 4 of the Iraqi constitution.

'A new IRAQ law strips Palestinians of basic rights. Palestinians will no longer enjoy same rights and privileges as Iraqi citizens.'

Is there anyone Hayder's government won't persecute?

Apparently not and let's note this from The Palestinian Return Centre:

The Palestinian Return Centre condemns in the strongest terms the new law recently passed by the Iraqi government which discriminates against Palestinians living in the country.
The Palestinian Return Centre calls on the international community to condemn this new legislation and apply strong pressure on the Iraqi government to respect its international obligations towards Palestinians.
Iraqi President Fuad Masum has repealed a law that previously granted Palestinians living in Iraq of all rights and privileges enjoyed since 1948.
Ministerial Resolution 202-2001 provided Palestinian refugees with all the benefits to which Iraqi nationals are entitled, except for obtaining Iraqi nationality. This law permitted Palestinian refugees to benefit from citizenship rights and access to various important sectors such as health, education and the right to work.
The repealing of this law puts Palestinians in Iraq among the category of foreign residents, denying them the previously conferred rights. The decision came into force after it was published in the Iraqi Official Gazette No. 4466.
Palestinian refugees have been residing in Iraq since the beginning of Nakba in 1948, due to the Arab -Israeli war which caused large scale displacement in the region. In 1967 a group of Palestinian refugees fled to Iraq and the last Palestinian refugees that fled to Iraq from the Gulf countries were in 1991 due to the Gulf war. Before the American invasion in 2003, the number of Palestinian refugees in Iraq was 42,000, according to the Palestinian Refugee Affairs in Iraq. Some 4,000 are now believed to reside in the country.

Khaled Abu Toameh (Gatestone Institute) explains:

The conditions of the Palestinians in Iraq are about to go from bad to worse. The new law, which was ratified by Iraqi President Fuad Masum, deprives Palestinians living in Iraq of their right to free education, healthcare and to travel documents, and denies them work in state institutions. The new law, which is called No. 76 of 2017, revokes the rights and privileges granted to Palestinians under Saddam Hussein. The law went into effect recently after it was published in the Iraqi Official Gazette No. 4466.
[. . .]
"The Iraqi law is unacceptable and inhumane," stated Tayseer Khaled, a senior PLO official. He pointed out that the Iraqi authorities have failed to provide protection to the Palestinians living in Iraq and that is why they became easy prey for various militias that prompted many of them to flee the country during the past 15 years. Khaled noted that many Palestinian families were forced to live in makeshift temporary refugee camps along the borders of Syria and Jordan after being driven from their homes. "We call on the Iraqi authorities to treat Palestinians humanely," he said.

And we'll note this:

Hamas' Musa Abu Marzouk decries new Iraqi law depriving Palestinians of basic rights: "Coincides with Zionist effort to liquidate the issue of refugees."

The attack on the Palestinians has received very little attention.  In the west, that may be due to the traditional withdrawal from news this time of year.

But the reports are disturbing and the Iraqi government's actions are outrageous.

Hayder al-Abadi is just as bad as Nouri al-Maliki, the thug he replaced when Barack Obama finally decided he couldn't continue to stomach Nouri's attacks on the Iraqi people.

The hatred and vengeance never ends with the groups the US government gets into bed with.  Take those 'peaceful' Yazidis (well that's how their neoconservative p.r. firm sold them to the western press).  RUDAW notes:

Reports of sectarian retribution and disputes are plaguing areas in Iraq more than half a year after they were declared free of ISIS.

“As the ground fighting against ISIS winds down in Iraq, state security forces need to turn their focus to preventing retaliation and upholding the rule of law,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director at HRW in a report released Wednesday that documented an alleged act of revenge killings.

“Past atrocities against the Yezidis don’t give its armed forces a free pass to commit abuses against other groups, whatever their past,” she stated.

At least 52 members — mostly women and children — of the Sunni Arab Al-Jahaysh and Al-Metweti tribes were allegedly forcibly disappeared and killed south of Shingal by Yezidi Ezidikhan forces in June according to an investigation carried out by Human Rights Watch.

Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) adds:

Those killed reportedly came from eight families of the Sunni Al Bu Metewut tribe who were escaping clashes between ISIL and pro-government militias north of the second city Mosul, the group said.
Yazidi fighters formed the Lalish Brigades and the Ezidkhan Brigades, units under the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), also known as Hashed Al Shaaby, a force of the Iraqi prime minister Haider Al Abadi, and therefore part of the state’s armed forces.

And ALJAZEERA notes:

A PMF member told HRW that he investigated allegations in Sinjar province. With the help of local Yezidis, he was able to locate a cluster of four mass graves in Qabusiye.
According to the report, he saw the bones and skulls of at least four children as well as women and children's shoes near the graves.
Shortly after the disappearance, a legal advisor to a Yazidi brigade told HRW that Yezidi forces were involved in the capture of 52 people. According to the report, he also said that members of the tribe were "dogs who deserve to die".

Click here for the Human Rights Watch report.

Again, this is supposed to be Hayder's 'victory lap' but instead we witness Iraq falling apart all around him.

Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Christmas 2017" went up yesterday.  The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, the ACLU and BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- updated:

  • Wednesday, December 27, 2017

    Mad About You


    Above is Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Joan Walsh fired"

    Mad About You.
    And I don’t mean Belinda Carlisle!
    Mad About You was a successful NBC sitcom.
    It was hilarious and Helen Hunt won Emmy after Emmy for playing Jamie Buckman.
    Her husband Paul was played by Paul Reiser.
    That’s where I get confused.
    Paul flopped huge. 
    No one flopped like him ever.  The Paul Reiser Show.  Rember?

    The awful show, if you haven't already guessed, starred celebrity Paul Reiser as celebrity Paul Reiser in The Paul Reiser Show. That's three helpings of Paul Reiser and more than enough to make most TV viewers insist they were already full, thank you.

    In its debut outing, the show set a record for worst NBC sitcom debut ever. Ever. Nothing has ever done worse in the network's long, long history. Nothing. And this is the network that aired Four Kings, Double Trouble, Hello, Larry, My Mother The Car and The Michael Richards Show. But The Paul Reiser Show got worst ratings than every other NBC sitcom. Ever. We'd already told one vice president at NBC that the show was a turkey before it aired. But after it aired, he wasn't the only one assuring us it would run through May. There was a whole chorus of NBC suits insisting that (a) the show got better as it went along (were they watching the same episodes we were?) and (b) NBC had invested a small fortune in the show.

    That was money wasted. That should have been obvious from the start. And that's the reason we're writing about the just cancelled, only two-episode airing series.

    Paul Reiser is annoying. He is to be avoided. Ourselves, we figured that, outside of his being caught in a tranny scandal, nothing could make us stop shielding our eyes to avoid him. And, judging by the ratings, our reaction is fairly common across America.

    In the industry? He is infamous for his on set tantrums, for his bitchy nature and for never, ever being happy. He is a nightmare to be around and most who have worked with him will tell you that in much saltier language. He began earning his reputation on the set of My Two Dads shortly after he felt the show was secure (it would run three seasons) and he felt Greg Evigan was no longer playing just the dumb 'dad' but also the sexy one. At that point, Paul Reiser taught NBC the meaning of the term "diva." And though NBC tired quickly of the antics, suits convinced themselves that the problem was Reiser was "too creative" to work under others directions. So he went off to develop his own project.

    Which he more or less did solo. Danny Jacobson got a credit but -- ask Roseanne -- Danny was really good about getting credits that others didn't feel he'd earned. As originally developed, Mad About You was all Reiser. And that may seem like a compliment to some people. People with memory trouble or who never saw the show or only saw the show after the first season won't get what a problem that actually was.

    Mad About You featured no attractive men in the original cast -- or in the cast at all (guest stars would sometimes be the exception). That's because Diva Reiser wasn't about to have another show where he competed with an Evigan (it was known as the "No Pretty Boy" edict).

    "Too pretty" was Reiser's most used phrase when nixing men to play Mark (the role of Paul's best friend) until finally agreeing on Richard Kind.

    Mad About You was going to be the story of Paul Buckman. Unlike My Two Dads, there would be no one to steal focus. He wasn't keen even on the idea of Paul having a wife but NBC made it clear that one was needed. Throughout the time it aired and long after it went off the air, My Two Dads was a gold mine for stand up comics who wanted to tell gay jokes or 'jokes.' While that image didn't really stick to Greg Evigan (possibly due to BJ and the Bear or due to the stereotypes we were addressing last week), it did stick to Paul Reiser. And he was informed really quick  that a sister for Paul wasn't going to cut it, the character needed a wife.

    A lot of actresses read for the part of Jamie Buckman. Some were hilarious. Helen Hunt was not. Hunt gave a professional, albiet slightly distracted, reading. Not going for the obvious laugh lines was a lucky move on Hunt's part. The women who did were nixed by Reiser who set his sights on Hunt, then primarily known as a dramatic actress -- and a good one at that. Which meant, Reiser thought, that she'd be no competition in the laugh department and Jamie could be straight person and/or butt of the jokes.

    For most of the series run, Paul (Reiser) and Jamie (Helen Hunt) didn't have a child. By the time they did, the end was already planned. If it hadn't been, there would have been no child because Reiser didn't want to exchange a dialogue with a child actor. He'd felt upstaged by Staci Keanan (the "my" of My Two Dads) and also didn't like the fact that she and Evigan had a natural connection on air while the Keanan and Reiser connection always felt forced.

    All his ducks were in a row, Reiser just knew. But a funny thing happened, Hunt's distracted nature in the reading? It wasn't that she was distracted. It was how she saw Jamie responding to Paul. So she wasn't the nag the scripts were calling for. She was bemused when she was supposed to be a harpy. And Reiser could try the audience's patience as well so they found themselves identifying with Jamie. Jamie was a hit.

    At one point, Reiser went to NBC trying to pitch the break up of Paul and Jamie (for good, not just toyed with as what aired did). NBC made it clear that audiences loved Jamie and that the only sitcom where the characters divorced and one disappeared that they knew of was Rhoda and that show (they felt) spent years trying to figure out what it was actually about after Joe was written off the show. Then NBC and Columbia-Tri Star (the studio producing the sitcom) made it clear that Hunt wasn't just staying, she was doing a lot more on the show. At which point, Mad About You got cooking and became a reliably funny show (and, in 1996, four years after the debut, Hunt would finally get a producer credit).

    If you think Reiser took comfort in the fact that he was co-starring in a hit show and getting residuals as a co-creator, that he was set for life, you don't know Paul Reiser. He's never happy. And he was unhappy when Helen Hunt won an Emmy for Mad About You. And he was twice as unhappy when she won a second one, and a third one and a fourth one. But what really made him hopping mad was when Hunt became the first sitcom performer to win an Academy Award for lead performance in a film while appearing on a TV series. Nothing made Reiser happy and people took to calling him "Mad About Everything."

    That NBC would want to work with Reiser again, let alone spend a ton of money developing a show for him, is only surprising if you don't know that "he would never do that to me" is an industry axiom. The "he" is why it's Paul Reiser whom the networks give more chances to instead of, for example, Roseanne. Men's bad behavior is forever explained away (it's why CBS is still attempting to come to some sort of understanding with Charlie Sheen). So the network that really should have been looking to some of their nineties female comedy stars to see if they wanted to develop a TV show instead went with Reiser.

    And he was not funny.
    He was so not funny.
    And America did not want to watch his show.
    So why bring him back?
    I love Helen Hunt.  I know she’s focused on directing these days but I’ve always wished she’d come back in a sitcom.
    I will gladly watch Mad About You – even with Reiser – just to see Helen.
    She’s hilarious and made for comedy.
    She doesn’t really have a film career and that’s more due to the fact that they don’t like comedies anymore.
    Not romantic comedies.  Not adult comedies.  They just like gross out comedies.
    Now she could do one.  She could be as funny as Megan was in Why Him? But that’s not really what we want to see Helen do.
    So if she wants to come back in Mad About You, she’s got a viewer in me. 
    But Paul better grasp he’s not running things and America hasn’t been waiting for him to return.

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

    Wednesday, December 27, 2017.

    XINHUA insists, "The hard-won victory in 2017 over the terror group Islamic State (IS) by Iraq is overshadowed by a growing conflict with the Kurds [. . .]"

    And REUTERS notes that the US government insisted, December 5th, that only 3,000 ISIS members remained in Iraq and Syria but today insists the number has fallen to 1,000.

    "Hard-won victory," XINHUA insisted on Tuesday.

    That would be the same Tuesday that KURDISTAN 24 reported:

    Contrary to the Iraqi Prime Minister’s announcement of the end of the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq in early December, the extremist group’s sleeper cells continue to launch attacks and claim lives. 
    IS extremists have killed and injured 40 people while attacking the Iraqi security forces and Iranian-backed Hashd al-Shaabi in south and west of Kirkuk. 
     The extremists appear to have been hiding in the Sunni-populated areas of southern and western Kirkuk. 
     According to the statements of the Iraqi army commanders, IS group have launched surprise attacks in Sharia’a, Riyadh, Hawija road and some other areas in southern Kirkuk.


    Or something.

    In other news of 'success,' . . .

    Cycle of violence continues with fighters in 2017 killing families linked to abuses from 2014. Until proper justice is done for abuses in we will continue to see acts of vigilante revenge

    Oh, those peaceful Yazidis.

    Hard to believe, right, that the Yazidis could ever have teamed up with a neocon p.r. firm.

    They're so pure.

    And so innocent.

    Trapped on a mountain (of their own making) somewhere -- even all this time later.

    Turning to US politics, . . .

    If Ralph Nader hadn’t run for president in 2000, might Gore have won, his administration not sat on a memo such as “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, thus avoiding 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS, and so forth?

    But Ralph Nader did run -- and had every right to run.

    What might have been different if Al Gore had selected a better running mate?

    Joe Lieberman?

    Defeated in a 2006 Democratic primary.

    Joe Lieberman?

    Neocon Joe?

    And let's not forget that the war on Iraq was also part of Bill Clinton's administration.

    Or that Al Gore initially supported the war on Iraq in the lead up (he would denounce it before the illegal war started but he signaled support early on).

    In March of 2003, the ongoing Iraq War started.

    And let's blame Ralph Nader.

    Not the Joe Liebermans.

    Nor the Democrats in the Senate who voted for it (Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein . . .).

    Let's blame Ralph Nader.

    Not the media that lied and whored.

    And isn't it funny how, all this time later, we pretend that the lying just happened?

    We pretend like the owners own wants and desires didn't influence the coverage.

    Blame Ralph Nader.

    It's his fault for running for president.

    I denounced Ralph in 2000.  For a number of reasons.

    But I never suggested that he didn't have a right to run.

    I never suggested that he needed to drop out of the race.

    That's not how it works in a democracy.

    But pretending Ralph is the problem allows you to forget how Al Gore couldn't make the case to the American people clearly.

    Was he harmed by the media?  Of course.  That's to be expected.

    But when he took his message to the American people, it wasn't a good one.  It wasn't strong.

    That's on him.

    He had enough money to get around the media (I donated to Al's campaign).

    But he was a weak candidate.

    Blame Ralph, blame Jill, blame this, blame that.

    Never hold the losing candidate accountable for their own errors, apparently.

    Jackson Lears, in the latest edition of THE LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS, notes how weak candidate Hillary was:

    This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby ‘The Democratic Party’s claims of fighting for “working families” have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,’ Autopsy announces. But what sets this apart from most progressive critiques is the cogent connection it makes between domestic class politics and foreign policy. For those in the Rust Belt, military service has often seemed the only escape from the shambles created by neoliberal policies; yet the price of escape has been high. As Autopsy notes, ‘the wisdom of continual war’ – what Clinton calls ‘global leadership’ –
    was far clearer to the party’s standard bearer [in 2016] than it was to people in the US communities bearing the brunt of combat deaths, injuries and psychological traumas. After a decade and a half of non-stop warfare, research data from voting patterns suggest that the Clinton campaign’s hawkish stance was a political detriment in working-class communities hard-hit by American casualties from deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Francis Shen of the University of Minnesota and Douglas Kriner of Boston University analysed election results in three key states – Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan – and found that ‘even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations, we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump.’ Clinton’s record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. Kriner and Shen conclude that Democrats may want to ‘re-examine their foreign policy posture if they hope to erase Trump’s electoral gains among constituencies exhausted and alienated by 15 years of war’. If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It’s a long shot, but there is something happening out there.

    The problem wasn't Jill Stein.

    The problem was Hillary Clinton.

    Who never should have run in 2016.

    It's amazing how the tired little Hillary had to rush home every evening.

    We criticized Bully Boy Bush for that in 2000 -- or some of us did.  Little boy needed his own pillow and bed.  Wanted to be president but was too weak to campaign.

    And then in 2016, we saw the same thing with Hillary.

    She never should have run.

    Eight years prior, she was branded a racist by Barack Obama and the media.

    Eight years prior, he hung her vote for the Iraq War around her neck.  Used that vote to come from behind in October of 2007 and become the front runner.  And was very clear in September and October of 2007 that he was going to do that.

    But eight years later, when she was still insisting that (a) her vote wasn't wrong and (b) that Bully Boy Bush had misled her, she's the candidate to go with?

    Hillary is the problem.

    More to the point, so is Ben Landis.

    Oh, Ben, thanks, big boy, for your big old Tweet on Iraq.

    Your only Tweet, in fact.

    This illegal war has lasted over 14 years (15th anniversary is this coming March).

    And you can't pay attention to it, can you?

    You can't call for it's end.

    But you can suddenly remember the ongoing war to trash . . . Ralph Nader.

    Last time I checked, Ralph didn't vote for the Iraq War, didn't cheerlead for it, didn't call for it.

    While celebrating the holidays at home, let us not forget the service members spending Christmas abroad. I was fortunate enough to spend this Christmas with some of the brave heroes serving in Iraq from California & across our nation. Happy holidays & thank you for your sacrifice

    Oh, look, it's US House Rep Carbajal.  In Iraq.  This week.

    Because the Iraq War hasn't ended.

    Because US troops remain in Iraq.

    A reality that some might consider addressing.

    Not Senator Dianne Feinstein, of course.  She didn't go to Iraq.  She still hasn't noted that a Californian died in Iraq last week -- not even on her Twitter feed.

    New content at THIRD:

    Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Joan Walsh fired" went up Saturday (she's now got a contract with CNN, to update) and he has another comic that will go up shortly.