- What's up with the Comey love? Did people forget about COINTELPRO? How the movement was crushed? F*ck Comey and everybody else from the FBI.
- Margaret Kimberley RetweetedComey and FBI are new champions of liberal left. And you wonder why it's so difficult to build a real progressive opposition in the U.S.
It is such a challenge to be on the left these days.
You're pressured to support the stooges who have violated our rights -- stooges like Comey.
Or you're expected to worship the CIA or the FBI or both.
Which requires amnesia, let's be honest.
It's a very difficult time.
"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Thursday, June 8, 2017. Chaos and violence continue and is greeted with so much silence.
Day 232 of The Mosul Slog.
What's been accomplished?
Day 232 of The Mosul Slog.
What's been accomplished?
In a series of serious violations by US-backed forces, new vid emerge of Iraqi soldiers torturing a man to death:
That is an accomplishment.
It's not a good one, it's not an honorable one.
But it's been accepted and normalized -- including by the US government.
And it will have a huge impact on Iraq's future.
Torture is okay.
That's the message.
That and justice is made by our hands and not by any court.
Do you fear yet for Iraq's future?
Because you should.
A message has been sent.
Just like one was sent after Nouri al-Maliki lost the 2010 election but wouldn't step down and Barack Obama, then-US president, went around the Iraqi people to give Nouri a second term via The Erbil Agreement.
Within two years, Barack had turned on Nouri.
After Barack won the 2012 election, Nouri called to congratulate him and Barack refused to take the call, palming it off instead on Joe Biden.
It would be two more years (2014) before Barack would publicly rebuke Nouri.
Those millions Barack's going to get for his superficial tract on his life in the White House should warrant a little honesty on Iraq and especially on Nouri.
By 2010, Nouri's use of torture and secret prisons were well known.
But Barack chose to give him a second term.
ISIS would most likely never have gotten a foothold in Iraq were it not for Nouri's second term.
(Nouri's responsible for the rise of ISIS but I say "most likely" because Nouuri's far from the only despot in Iraq and someone similar to Nouri could have also precipitated the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq.)
When Barack's door step is finally released, Nouri al-Maliki should figure prominently in it.
As should Barack's sleight of hand with regards to the Iraq War.
A bunch of silly fools enlisted into The Cult of St. Barack.
They believed he'd end the Iraq War.
That's on them.
Barack didn't end it.
And they're still in denial.
I can understand being temporarily fooled.
Elaine and I met him when he was trying to get into the US Senate.
And the hype laid down had us both excited.
But all he had to do was say that the US was already in Iraq and blah blah blah for us to realize he wasn't anti-war and that embarrassing and sparsely attended 'big' speech of 2002 didn't matter.
If Barack was honest about ending the Iraq War, I would have supported his Senate run.
If he were honest, I would have turned this site, in 2007 and 2008, over to non-stop Barack -- one long running infomercial.
But he was a liar.
And it's amazing that eight years later, as the Iraq War continues, his Cult still can't get honest.
And I've been kind enough. Stop pretending you couldn't have known.
Here's a piece we did at THIRD:
NYT: "Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq"
The story you should have seen Friday.
The New York Times
Friday, November 2, 2007
"Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq"
by Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny
Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean.
Declaring that "there are no good options in Iraq," Senator Obama went on to explain that even with his 16 month plan for withdrawal, he would continue to keep US troops in Iraq, agreeing that he would "leave behind residual force" even after what he is billing as a "troop withdrawal."
"Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast," Senator Obama offered contrasting himself with his chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I do think it is important for us not only to protect our embassy, but also to engage in counter-terrorism activities. We’ve seen progress against AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], but they are a resilient group and there’s the possibility that they might try to set up new bases. I think that we should have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."
The Senator insisted, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities. How large that force is, whether it’s located inside Iraq or as an over the horizon force is going to depend on what our military situation is."
The positon of the majority of Americans in poll after poll is that all US troops need to be brought home by 2008. Senator Obama's strategy calls for bringing some troops home, should he be elected president, in his first sixteen months; however, he is not, by his own words, an advocate of a "Out of Iraq" strategy.
While maintaining that he would remove all combat troops in sixteen months he did agree that the forces left behind to fight "terrorists" would be performing "a combat function."
He also spoke of deployment, and presumably bases, "in places like Kuwait" in order "to strike at terrorist targets successfully."
Returning the topic of leaving US forces in Iraq even after what he's billed as a "withdrawal," the Senator delcared, "As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence.
The senator also admitted that he was comfortable with sending troops back into Iraq after what he's terming a "withdrawal" though he wanted to split hairs on what constituted "armed force."
In what will be seen as a blow to his Democratic-center-slightly-left admirers such as the editor and publisher of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Senator Obama touched on the topic that led to a brief flurry of disappointment when he refused to take all options off the table regarding Iran. In the interview yesterday, he repeated, "I don't think the president of the United States takes military options off the table." In addition, he also endorsed the Bully Boy's unproven claim that the Iranian government is equipping the resistance by declaring, "Iran has shown no inclination to back off of their support of Shia militias as a consequence of the threats that they've been receiving from the Bush and Cheney administration."
All in all, a candidate our readers can rest assured will not rock the boat or fundamentally change the current direction of the country.
----------
That's the story they could have written based upon the interview conducted by Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny. As C.I. noted in Friday's "Iraq snapshot," the interview the reporters conducted hit harder than the sop they wrote up on it that ran on Friday's front page of the paper.
The New York Times
Friday, November 2, 2007
"Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq"
by Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny
Presidential candidate and US Senator Barack Obama who is perceived as an 'anti-war' candidate by some announced that he would not commit to a withdrawal, declared that he was comfortable sending US troops back into Iraq after a withdrawal started and lacked clarity on exactly what a withdrawal under a President Obama would mean.
Declaring that "there are no good options in Iraq," Senator Obama went on to explain that even with his 16 month plan for withdrawal, he would continue to keep US troops in Iraq, agreeing that he would "leave behind residual force" even after what he is billing as a "troop withdrawal."
"Even something as simple as protecting our embassy is going to be dependent on what is the security environment in Baghdad. If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have significant sectarian conflict, that means another, but this is an area where Senator Clinton and I do have a significant contrast," Senator Obama offered contrasting himself with his chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. "I do think it is important for us not only to protect our embassy, but also to engage in counter-terrorism activities. We’ve seen progress against AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], but they are a resilient group and there’s the possibility that they might try to set up new bases. I think that we should have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."
The Senator insisted, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities. How large that force is, whether it’s located inside Iraq or as an over the horizon force is going to depend on what our military situation is."
The positon of the majority of Americans in poll after poll is that all US troops need to be brought home by 2008. Senator Obama's strategy calls for bringing some troops home, should he be elected president, in his first sixteen months; however, he is not, by his own words, an advocate of a "Out of Iraq" strategy.
While maintaining that he would remove all combat troops in sixteen months he did agree that the forces left behind to fight "terrorists" would be performing "a combat function."
He also spoke of deployment, and presumably bases, "in places like Kuwait" in order "to strike at terrorist targets successfully."
Returning the topic of leaving US forces in Iraq even after what he's billed as a "withdrawal," the Senator delcared, "As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful. We will structure those forces so they can be successful. We would still have human intelligence capabilities on the ground. Some of them would be civilian, as opposed to military, some would be operating out of our bases as well as our signal intelligence.
The senator also admitted that he was comfortable with sending troops back into Iraq after what he's terming a "withdrawal" though he wanted to split hairs on what constituted "armed force."
In what will be seen as a blow to his Democratic-center-slightly-left admirers such as the editor and publisher of The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Senator Obama touched on the topic that led to a brief flurry of disappointment when he refused to take all options off the table regarding Iran. In the interview yesterday, he repeated, "I don't think the president of the United States takes military options off the table." In addition, he also endorsed the Bully Boy's unproven claim that the Iranian government is equipping the resistance by declaring, "Iran has shown no inclination to back off of their support of Shia militias as a consequence of the threats that they've been receiving from the Bush and Cheney administration."
All in all, a candidate our readers can rest assured will not rock the boat or fundamentally change the current direction of the country.
----------
That's the story they could have written based upon the interview conducted by Michael Gordon and Jeff Zeleny. As C.I. noted in Friday's "Iraq snapshot," the interview the reporters conducted hit harder than the sop they wrote up on it that ran on Friday's front page of the paper.
November 4, 2007.
So stop pretending you couldn't have guessed, drop your Condi Rice pretense.
Barack did a drawdown (not a withdrawal) and then started sending troops back in (in 2012) and then amplified that in 2014.
And the Iraq War continues, it drags on.
I don't have a lot of respect for the rank and file members of The Cult of St. Barack but I especially have no use for the lieutenants in the Cult (who daily prepared the Kool-Aid) and the master of ceremony.
Norman Solomon?
I used to love Norman.
Now that whore needs to get honest or go away.
Clearly, he can't get honest.
Norman -- a pledged delegate for Barack in 2008 (a detail he forgot to mention in his radio appearances until he was repeatedly called out) -- pretended to care about the Iraq War.
When's the last time Norman wrote about the Iraq War?
Exactly.
He writes these days, in a very ineffectual manner.
Take this from his piece at COUNTERPUNCH this week:
The Trump administration has already done enormous harm to the United States and the planet. Along the way, Trump has also caused many prominent progressives to degrade their own political discourse. It’s up to us to challenge the corrosive effects of routine hyperbole and outright demagoguery.
Norman's become ridiculous.
Trump has also caused many prominent progressives to degrade their own political discourse.
Accountability, it's a word Norman's allergic to.
So he writes garbage like that: "Trump has also caused many prominent progressives to degrade . . ."
No, they are responsible for their actions.
Of course it would be a man, right?
Of course it would be a man who would insist that one's actions were the responsiblity of others.
'She was asking for it'?
Isn't that the 'legal' foundation for Norman's sentence?
Those embracing Russia-hysteria are doing so.
That's on them.
It's not on Trump.
They are making a choice -- and doing tremendous damage -- and they can't hide behind Donald Trump. They need to be called out and they need to take accountability.
But pledged delegate for Barack Obama never took accountability, did he?
Grand standing as only Norman could, he sold the lie throughout 2008 that Barack was peace and Barack would end the Iraq War.
He had so much to say back then about Barack and Iraq but now he pretends it never happened.
Barack didn't cause Norman to write and say what he did.
Norman made the decision to.
And it's past time that Norman took accountability.
He's far from the only one who needs to, to be sure.
June 7, #CJTFOIR conducted 38 strikes consisting of 75 engagements against #ISIS terrorists in #Syria & #Iraq. MORE: ow.ly/HB3530cqgIx
Again, the Iraq War continues.
The guilty -- like Norman Solomon -- now think they can escape accountability by pretending the war isn't taking place.
The suffering continues -- even in Norman Solomon's silence -- and it's not going to end while large numbers turn their heads away.
Use of air-dropped & ground-launched explosive weapons in #Mosul causing unnecessary civilian suffering - @hrw hrw.org/news/2017/06/0… #Iraq
Human Rights Watch notes:
The expected battle involving Iraqi and US-led coalition forces against the Islamic State (ISIS) in west Mosul’s Old City poses a considerable threat to civilians and civilian objects, international humanitarian and human rights organizations said today. All warring parties should cease using explosive weapons with wide area effects and inherently indiscriminate weapons in densely populated west Mosul. ISIS’s unlawful use of civilians as “human shields” and the difficulty of identifying civilians in buildings increases the risk of civilian casualties.
The United Nations has estimated that 200,000 civilians remain in the two-square-kilometer area in west Mosul’s Old City, which Iraqi and US-led coalition forces are encircling in preparation for the battle there.
"Thousands of families are trapped by ISIS in west Mosul, with its fighters preventing civilians from fleeing to safety,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Iraqi and coalition forces should recognize that in the crowded Old City, using explosive weapons with wide area effects puts civilians at excessive risk.”
The groups expressing concern are Airwars, Amnesty International, Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, the International Network on Explosive Weapons (INEW), and War Child.
It's amazing to look at recent reports on Mosul in the last three weeks and grasp how there has been no attempt to amplify them by our so-called 'independent' media in the US.
Back in the day, many of them were funded by the CIA. The funding then effected what they cover. Today, the funding (including foundations) also effects what's covered.
So MOTHER JONES, THE PROGRESSIVE, THE NATION, Norman Solomon and so many others look the other way.
- Mercy?
- Not in this war
Iraqi 'inquisition' tortures siblings who escaped #ISIS in #Mosul
(DISTURBING FOOTAGE) on.rt.com/8du6
They should all be ashamed of themselves.
The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley -- updated:
Podcast to catch
9 hours ago
Satisaction?
9 hours ago
popsicles
9 hours ago
Stevie Nicks
9 hours ago
A few things
10 hours ago
Own it
10 hours ago
Prison labor is slave labor
10 hours ago
Why Comey couldn't be alone with Trump
12 hours ago
We are in serious trouble
12 hours ago
