Saturday, February 11, 2023

Seymour Hersh

Seymour Hersh is not an investigative reporter.  People make that mistake all the time.  His career has been about his being fed information by the intelligence community.  Oliver Stone believes Sy is actually CIA.  


C.I. doesn't believe that.  She and Sy go back.  He's one of the reasons that she and Coretta Scott King dropped out of the 1972 Ring Around The Capitol action.  Sy was circling that and getting all sorts of information -- some of which -- just by chance you understand -- did end up in the files the FBI kept on C.I.  


After Jack Anderson revealed to Jane Fonda the spying on her taking place, C.I. and I both filed requests for any files the FBI had on us.  It was very illuminating to learn what had been passed on and we could usually identify the source by how they spoke of us. 


Joan Baez had a snit fit when Coretta and C.I. walked on that action but they were right to do so.  Equally true, Sy was spying.  Spying for the government, yes.  Not because he worked for them but because he did favors for them and, in return, from time to time they fed him information.


That is reality.  Coretta didn't trust him, C.I. doesn't trust him to this day.


I mention that as a prelude to this piece of writing by Jeffrey St. Clair (COUNTERPUNCH) about Sy:


+ I read with intense interest Seymour Hersh’s account of the bombing of the Nordstream pipelines. Hersh certainly presents a plausible scenario for how the sabotage could have been executed. The reaction has, of course, been polarized, largely because the piece, published on Substack without, one presumes, any irritating queries from fact-checkers, rests entirely on the word of one unidentified source (referred to somewhat coyly throughout as “the Source”), who seems to command an almost omniscient knowledge of an operation involving many parts and players, including another country: Norway.

Hersh has built a dazzling career based on the use of anonymous sources, with major exposés over the decades in the New York Times, New Yorker and London Review of Books. In most of those cases, the anonymous source was backed up by tangible evidence of some sort. That’s not the case here. There’s no documentary or evidentiary trail. Indeed, some of the public data that is available seems to undermine (so to speak) Hersh’s account in at least one respect: there don’t appear to have been any Norwegian Alta-class ships in the area during the Baltops operation (June 5 to June 17, 2022).

Long-time Moscow correspondent John Helmer (who is convinced it was a NATO operation, involving the UK, Germany and the US) points out another curious, and perhaps revealing, blunder in Hersh’s piece. Hersh refers to meetings on the plot taking place in the Old Executive Office building at the “President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB).” As Helmer notes: “This reported acronym comes from the Carter Administration’s revival of the organization in 1978 and before the Clinton Administration merged and reorganized it in 1993. Nowadays — when Hersh’s source claims they were meeting – the acronym is PIAB.”

The piece plays to your prejudices and it has spawned a real guessing game as to who Hersh’s source is, what kind of axe he’s grinding, and against whom. If you’re curious, the current PIAB is chaired by retired Navy Admiral Sandy Winnfeld. At the time of the Nordstream caper its members included venture capitalist Gilman Louie, former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, former US Ambassador to India Richard Verma, and former Indiana Governor and US Senator Evan Bayh.

Is the US capable of such a plot? Yes. Has it done such things in the past? Yes. Did it have an incentive to act here? Maybe, though the risks of exposure were high and the consequences potentially catastrophic.

So, you can understand the skepticism. Imagine if Hersh had written a similar piece based on information from an unidentified intelligence source alleging that the bombing of Nordstream was a false flag attack conducted by the Russians to blame the Ukrainians and keep the European nations, especially Germany out of the war. The reaction would have flipped.

For years, Hersh has been sitting on a demolition of Dick Cheney. He has said that it can’t be published as long as his inside source is still alive. The question in Washington has long been: who’ll die first, Cheney, Hersh or the Source? Woodward and Bernstein just gave their source the name of a porn film and went with it.

Still Hersh’s recent track record isn’t unblemished. (Cf., the LRB piece on Bin Laden, the strange interview with Errol Morris in the documentary Wormwood on the CIA’s role in the death of Frank Olson (Hersh claimed to know how and why Olson died but couldn’t reveal it because he’d blow his source) and his unfortunate Seth Rich “theorizing,” (Hersh claimed to have an FBI source who saw a–nonexistent–report confirming Rich had been in touch with Wikileaks, which helped boost one of the more depraved conspiracies of the Russiagate era. He later claimed it was just DC gossip. See: Andy Kroll’s recent book A Death on W Street.)


Sy doesn't make things up.  He's fed everything he's ever written.  Some times he's fed the truth, some times he's fed lies.  He's happy to be used.


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, February 10, 2023.  The US government (and Tara Reade) stay silent about the murder of Tiba al-Ali, Tara is eager to share the stage with both a registered sex offender and a man fired by FOX NEWS because he was harassing employees. 




"The police always come late if they come at all."  Tracy Chapman nailed it.  Sadly, it's true of much more than just the police.  Next month is the 20th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War (or the latest phase of an ongoing war that began in the last century).  US troops remain on the ground in Iraq to this day.  Last December, US Marine Staff Sgt Samuel D. Lecce became the most recent US service member to die in Iraq.  "Round and round it goes, where it ends, nobody knows."  That's supposed to be a slogan for roulette but it's become the US government's 'plan' for war.


AP notes:


Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday that the Senate will vote to repeal two decades-old measures giving open-ended approval for military action in Iraq, raising the hopes of a bipartisan group of senators who want to reclaim congressional powers over US military strikes and deployments.

The vote, which would come after consideration in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, could take place just before the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. It would repeal the 2002 measure that greenlighted that March 2003 invasion, along with a separate 1991 measure that sanctioned the US-led Gulf War to expel Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait.

“Every year we keep this authorization to use military force on the books is another chance for a future president to abuse or misuse it,” Schumer said. “War powers belong squarely in the hands of Congress, and that implies that we have a responsibility to prevent future presidents from hijacking this AUMF to bumble us into a new war.”


Igor Bobic (HUFFINGTON POST) notices the glass knocked off the table and now broken into shards on the floor and sees it as half-full -- why else would he write, "The push to repeal the 2002 Iraq War military authorization and the 1991 Gulf War authorization has steadily gained bipartisan momentum in recent years."  Grace Segers breathes a little more reality at THE NEW REPUBLIC:


Roughly 32 years ago, Congress approved its first authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, in Iraq. Another AUMF for Iraq was approved 11 years later, in 2002, approving further action in the country after the September 11 terrorist attacks. More than two decades later, Congress is a step closer to repealing these authorizations, formally bringing the Gulf and Iraq wars to a close. True AUMF buffs know that this isn’t the first time that lawmakers have tried to repeal these measures—but a new momentum is threatening the inertia that has kept them in place. 



Staying with the US government, yesterday the US State Dept issued the following:


Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein Before Their Meeting

Remarks

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Treaty Room

Washington, D.C.

February 9, 2023

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Good morning, everyone.

FOREIGN MINISTER HUSSEIN:  Good morning.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  It’s a great pleasure to have my longtime friend Fuad Hussein, the foreign minister of Iraq, here at the State Department in Washington.  We have worked together for many years – too many years.  But it’s always wonderful to have you here.

But this is an important moment, an important meeting.  We have a Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, but we are now focused very intensely on the economic dimension of that agreement and the work that we can do together, the United States and Iraq, to continue to strengthen Iraq’s economy, its integration, reintegration in the region, in ways that make a material difference in the lives of the Iraqi people and Iraqi citizens.

One particular focus will be on energy, on electricity.  Iraq can and should be strongly energy independent, and this is something that I think the United States and others can continue to support Iraq as it moves in that direction.

So that’s the focus of our conversations, but I would just say as well that President Biden had a very good conversation with Prime Minister Sudani just a few days ago, and we look very much forward with the prime minister to strengthening the strategic partnership that unites Iraq and the United States.

Fuad.

FOREIGN MINISTER HUSSEIN:  Thank you very much, and thank you, Tony.  Thank you for your friendship – personal friend, but also you are a friend of the Iraqi people.  Thank you very much for your support in the fight against ISIS.  And we worked together, we fought together, we defeated the so-called Islamic State together, and we will continue working together on the basis of building and rebuilding our economy.  And with your support, with the American companies’ support – we are in need for your support in various fields, and we will continue our cooperation.

And thank you very much for your time and for receiving us here.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you, my friend.

FOREIGN MINISTER HUSSEIN:  Thank you.  Bye-bye.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks, everyone.


Iraq came up at yesterday's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Ned Price.


NED PRICE:  And finally, today the Secretary hosted the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Fuad Hussain and his delegation in the first-ever economic-focused Higher Coordinating Committee of the U.S.‑Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, reinforcing the strong relationship between our countries. The Iraqi delegation will meet with a range of U.S. officials to discuss strengthening Iraq’s economy, pursuing Iraqi energy independence, and combatting climate change. This is our first HCC since Prime Minister Sudani formed a new government, and we are looking forward to a robust discussion.

The United States supports a strong, stable, and sovereign Iraq, and we recognize the critical important of a healthy and growing economy for this end.


[. . .]

QUESTION: Thank you. As you know, the Iraqi delegation have come to talk about security relationship and politic and economy. My question is: Does the U.S. Government instead on it is demands on the Iraqi Government in terms of trade relations with the countries that are listed on your sanctions, including Iran and Russia?

MR PRICE: Our relationship with the Government of Iraq is one based on partnership. It is one based on mutual respect. It is based on our mutual interests and what works to the benefit of both of our countries. It is not our approach, whether it is the Government of Iraq or any other partner of ours, to issue demands, to issue decrees. When we engage with our Iraqi partners, we do often talk about the challenges that we confront in the region and well beyond. Many of those challenges are challenges to both of our interests. Iranian-backed forces in some cases pose a challenge to both of our interests.

So when we talk about sanctions, we don’t talk about it in terms of what we are demanding of our Iraqi partners. We talk about it in terms of what is good for both of our countries, and there is a lot that is good for both of our countries. That is the relationship of shared interests, mutual interests we have. The very fact that we have so many mutual interests allows us to have these conversations and allows us to arrive at common positions.

[. . .]


QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Just to follow up on my colleague’s question about the Russian sanctions related to Iraq, what – I met deputy prime minister yesterday. He said that we owe the Russian companies, but the United States will not let us to pay them back because they are imposing sanction to us. Then my question is that: Are you going to waive Iraq from the Russian sanctions to pay their owes, their debts to Russian companies?

And my second question: Last week, the House Representatives Foreign Affairs chairman, he sent a letter to Secretary Blinken and said when you have a meeting with the Iraqi delegation, bring the dispute between KRG and also Baghdad into the table, because some of the disputes, they make problem for oil and gas companies to working in Kurdistan Region. Then – but I don’t hear you and Secretary Blinken to mention that. Have you touched this issue with the Iraqi delegation?

MR PRICE: So a couple of things. We’ll have more to say on the meeting, I would expect, later today. But this meeting was the first time the Higher Coordinating Committee met exclusively on economic issues. The fact is that we have a 360-degree relationship with our Iraqi partners. That means that, beyond our cooperation in the security and defense realm, we’re committed to expanding all facets of that bilateral relationship: fighting corruption, combating the climate crisis, growing the private sector, creating jobs, improving public services, expanding educational and cultural programming, establishing Iraq’s energy independence, and strengthening Iraqi sovereignty.

Now, today’s session is focusing on the economics of all of that, the climate impacts of that relationship, the energy elements of it as well. So I would expect the issues that you raise will be up for discussion. I suspect we’ll have more to say before —

QUESTION: What about disputes between —

MR PRICE: — the (inaudible). Go ahead.

QUESTION: The disputes between KRG —

MR PRICE: Let me – let me move around. I need to move to others. Yes.


Once the KRG came up, Ned rushed off to another journalist and another topic.  That's far from the only thing being ignored.



Tiba al-Ali.  Is there a reason that the US government has made a decision to ignore her murder?  Is there a reason that the press covering the State Dept and the White House can't get off their lazy asses and ask for a statement regarding the murder.

So-called 'honor' killings continue in Iraq.  And not just in Iraq.  And it's past time that the US government made a public response about this latest murder.


They're real good about starting wars, the US government, not real good about ending them (or winning them).  Maybe if they could use Tiba's murder to start a new war, they'd have something to say?


Savera UK issued the following:


Tiba al-Ali was killed by her father on January 31st, 2023, in a reported ‘honour’ killing.

The 22-year-old was in the southern province of Diwaniya when she was killed, reportedly because her father had been ‘unhappy’ about her decision to live alone in Turkey. Her death has sparked protests in Iraq, with dozens gathering on February 5th to condemn the killing. Savera UK stands with those protesting against her murder.

Afrah Qassim, Savera UK CEO and Founder, said: “Savera UK is appalled and heartbroken by the ‘honour’ killing of Tiba al-Ali at the hands of her father in Iraq. Yet we are not shocked. Each year around 5,000 people die as a result of ‘honour’-based abuse and violence. There has been a cry for justice raised worldwide for Tiba only because she was widely known as YouTube star and media personality. But we should reminded ourselves that many others lose their lives in ‘honour’ killings, and who calls for justice for them? Iraq’s penal code stipulates that killings with an ‘honourable motive’ are a mitigating circumstance for punishment. It also states that punishment for a man who kills or beats his wife, female relative or her partner (in the case of adultery) to death or causes them permanent impairment, is up to three years in prison, with the judge afforded discretionary power to reduce this punishment.

“If ‘honour’ continues to be a mitigating factor – and excuse for murder – thousands more like Tiba will die. We stand with all those calling for justice for Tiba around the world. She was a bright, 22-year-old woman with the whole of her life ahead of her. She had the right to chose to leave her family home in Iraq to live in Turkey. She had a right to live freely, happily and peacefully. But that right was taken away from her.

“There is no ‘honour’ in abuse and there is no ‘honour’ in murder.

“Justice for Tiba al-Ali. Justice for all those lost in the name of ‘honour’.”

If you are at risk of ‘honour’-based abuse or harmful practices in the UK, contact the Savera UK helpline on 0800 107 0726 (operates weekdays 10am – 4pm). 









There's a non-action coming up that's getting press attention for the pedophile they'll be putting on stage.  THE VANGUARD did a good job covering it in the video below.





Chuck Ross (WASHINGTON FREE BEACON) notes:

An anti-war rally slated for later this month has been thrown into disarray by disagreements about a convicted child sex predator’s participation, with many speakers threatening to pull out of the Libertarian Party-led event if it booted the pedophile.

Pressure mounted internally for the Libertarian Party to disinvite Scott Ritter from the rally after the Washington Free Beacon reported about Ritter’s criminal past, which includes a 2011 prison stint for masturbating online in front of an undercover cop he believed to be an underage girl. He was arrested twice in 2001 after showing up for what he thought were meetings with 14- and 15-year-old girls. But as of this writing, Ritter's status as a featured speaker for the "Rage Against the War Machine" rally is still in limbo.

[. . .]

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former Fox News regular who is speaking at the rally, confirmed that he stood up for Ritter in an attempt to keep him in the event. He told Libertarian Party leaders that Ritter "is intellectually honest, personally courageous, profoundly trustworthy, and utterly fearless," according to an email he shared with the Free Beacon.

"He may be the most valued and knowledgeable public person in America in the Peace Movement today," said Napolitano, who lost his job at Fox News over accusations that he "sexually harassed numerous young male employees" at the network.

Other speakers rallied in support of Ritter, including Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden aide who said the president sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.

"It would be my honor to stand with" Ritter, she tweeted, adding that "Scott is a heroic anti war voice."

The Libertarian party has long been a home for those who have questioned the role of government in regulating sex between adults and minors. Just last year a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona named age of consent laws as something he'd move to change if elected. And in 2016 a Libertarian congressional candidate said all incidents of adults having sexual relationships with minors should be viewed on a case-by-case basis. "Hard age of consent laws don't take into account the actual maturity of the child," the candidate argued.


I told you Tara Reade was a bitch.  Some of you didn't like hearing the truth.  Doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted.  Just means she's not just an airhead, she's a really lousy person.  She pretends to support victims but apparently standing with registered sex offender Scott Ritter is her new hot thing.  Also note that the fact  Andrew Napolitano was fired from FOX NEWS for his harassment of young men.  I think Tara puts the "ME" in MeToo and honestly nothing else.  Again, she's a selfish bitch -- which is why she has that long list of former friends that she leached off of and never repaid.  Again, I believe she was assaulted.  I also believe she's a very bad person and she makes that clearer every day.  Right now, she's eager to share the stage with convicted sex offender Scott Ritter and workplace harasser Napolitano.  These are her people, please remember.

And this week, she couldn't stand with Tiba.  Of course not.  But she stood with another questionable man -- James O'Keefe.  Remember when Tara used to claim to be of the left?  She's so pathetic and her little con games always end with her exposed.



The following sites updated:

Posted by at

Thursday, February 09, 2023

George Ezra, WOLF PACK

Yesterday, Kat noted the Brit Award nominations in "Grammys, Harry, Beyonce, George."  George Ezra is up for Artist of the Year and Song of the Year ("Green Green Grass").

Good for him.


Now here's the latest mailing from his official site:


Sultan e-mailed to ask if I liked Sam Smith's new album GLORIA?  Yes, I love it.  Kat reviewed it here.


"TV: Now the hate mongers come for WOLF PACK" (Ava and C.I., THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW):

One homophobe -- who's written homophobic comments about many shows -- felt the need to share:


The boy on boy porn in the first 29 minutes was a little bit much for me. I don’t care what people do but I do not want it cramped down my throat. Teen Wolf was an amazing show and I so wanted to love this. I am a werewolf, vampire, ghost, mummy kind of person. I so wanted to love this show. Teen Wolf had so boy on boy to but they were tasteful with it. Y’all just threw it in our faces. I wish you lots of luck with the show. I got Paramont only to watch this show. Now I will cancel.


Where do you start with that garbage?  First off, she didn't watch the show or she wouldn't make the mistakes she does.  Second, she's not subscribing, she has no subscription to dump.  She's 'reviewing' based on the trailer. The first 29 minutes of the first episode?  Nope.  It's the second episode and it's 32 minutes into the program (minus commercials).  And this 'boy on boy porn'? It's not porn and it's 40 seconds split into three parts.  In the first two parts (23 seconds) Harlan (Tyler Lawrence Gray) is working out and having a dream or premonition where he and another guy kiss while clothed.  In the last third (17 seconds) the kissing continues and we see nude butt as the other guy pulls off Harlan's shorts. 

 

Do you get now what a liar the reviewer is?  And cramped down her throat?  Cramped?  Does she mean crammed?  That is the problem with Christian illiterates -- attempt to figure out what they mean as they wrongly use words from their highly limited vocabulary.  And for the record, Christian illiterates is a term from 30 ROCK and it doesn't refer to all Christians. It refers to stupid ones. See season five, episode 17 "Queen of Jordan" (written by Tracey Wigfield) where Liz tells Randi, "No, we're not writing a tearful admission of your being a call girl in Delaware.  Write it yourself."  To which Randi responds, "For your information I'm a Christian illiterate, so that's not an option." 


"TEEN WOLF had so boy on boy to" -- does she mean "had some boy on boy too"?  Again, the Christian illiterates don't just deface, they also create work for those who try to decipher their poorly worded and constructed sentences. 

 

And, again, she's not a subscriber to PARAMOUNT-PLUS.  No one who paid money for it would spell it "PARAMONT."  She watched the trailer -- probably on YOUTUBE -- and then wrote her homophobic and uninformed (redundant?) review.  40 seconds, please remember, was too much for her.  40 seconds was a same-sex relationship being "cramped" down her throat.


I haven't seen WOLF PACK yet but Mike watched it with his brother today and they really loved it.


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, February 9, 2023.  Today we look at truth, partisanship, lies and more.



I'm not a fan of the Twitter dumps.  I don't see them as reporting.  They're Tweets.  They're not reporting.  I've also noted that if a deal is made with Elon Musk to have access to the Tweets in the first place, that deal can't be private.  Basic journalism has always made that clear.


With that in mind, let me now call out the embarrassing AOC at yesterday's House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing entitled Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter's Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Sotry.  Republicans are now in control of the House so the chair of the Committee is James Comer -- a man who needs to buy a comb. (Although, scary, I was told yesterday that he's actually going for that look.  You're a fifty-year-old man in Congress, you're not playing Amanda Woodward on MELROSE PLACE, lose you're very bad attempt at 'bed hair.') Jamie Raskin is the Ranking Member.  As the Republicans on the Committee noted in a press release, "Under the leadership of former Twitter employees Vijaya Gadde, James Baker, and Yoel Roth, Twitter coordinated extensively with the FBI to disproportionately target Republican leaders, conservative activists, and certain media outlets. In October 2020, Twitter censored the NEW YORK POST's story about the Biden family’s business schemes based on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, despite the article not violating any Twitter policies."  That sentence is probably the least controversial -- and truest -- of any remarks made about or during the hearing.

But we can't deal with reality.  I'm about to call out a number of Democrats and before someone whines that the Republicans also obscure and spin, yes, they do.  They do it very often and if I was a fan of that, I would be a Republican.  

I'm not a fan of it and I do not like organized attempts to lie.  I don't like organized attempts to trick people.  

Something truly disgusting happened when THE NEW YORK POST was censored.  But instead of working for We The People, Democrats on the Committee and the White House tried to turn it into a football match.  I'm so sorry to break it to you but democracy is much more important than any Superbowl ring.  The only 'side' that anyone should aspire to is truth.  But instead, Democrats worked from a playbook to attack the hearing itself and to avoid the reality of what was done.


For example, AOC idiotically huffed, "A whole hearing about a 24 hiccup in a right-wing political operation! We could be talking about health care, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, abortion rights, voting rights, civil rights, but instead we're talking about Hunter Biden's half-baked laptop story."

Cool your jets, Entitlement Barbie.

First off, all you do -- all you have ever done -- is talk.  You're all talk.  You take no stands.  You not only wouldn't take part in Force The Vote, you then claimed that calling you out for that was a physical attack, a threat.  When you wonder why more young people aren't in Congress, look no further than AOC whose vast immaturity does no one a favor.

The hearing is not a waste of time.  The oldest daily paper in the United States was censored.  That's worth looking into.

I'm not a fan of THE NEW YORK POST.  It's slightly above garbage.  But it was only slightly above garbage when Dorothy Schiff owned and mis-ran it all those years, serving those stupid roast beef sandwiches to various leaders -- the ones who were Democrats would get raves in her paper.  Rupert Murdoch did not destroy the paper, he just had it do more of the same.

 

THE NEW YORK POST, ahead of the 2020 election, broke the story on the laptop.  And it was censored for that.  And it was attacked for that.  THE NEW YORK TIMES, for example, invested no money, no resources, no reporters into investigating the laptop.  They did put resources and money into the hit job they did on THE POST where multiple anonymice were given space to attack THE POST and we were told that the newsroom was in an uproar over the publication of the story.

Lies.

It was never true.  

The article was suppressed.  Some are insisting that another report is being suppressed and that we are part of a group suppressing it.

COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW has an article about how Russia-gate was lies and how THE NEW YORK TIMES and THE WASHINGTON POST.  Why, oh, why, are we ignoring it, e-mails ask.

First off, we never spread the lies, we called them out in real time.  So we don't need to do a corrective.

Secondly, those hailing the article are idiots with no knowledge at all.

I don't scapegoat Asian-Americans.  

If that doesn't explain why we're not highlighting the article, how about this: Jeff Gerth wrote it.

The liar Jeff who destroyed Wen Ho Lee's life.  I'm sorry that you  don't know history.  I'm sorry you are so stupid that you glorify a presstitute like Gerth who not only nearly got Wen Ho Lee tossed into prison with his lies and bad reporting but it could have led to Wen Ho Lee being executed.  

No, this is not a site that's ever going to praise Jeff Gerth.  And, no, I'm never going to offer an apology for not highlighting the writing of a man who trafficked in lies and stereotypes to convict an innocent person in the press.  Were Wen Ho Lee not Taiwanese-American, he wouldn't have been the target.  

So, no, not interested in promoting The Garbage That Is Gerth. 

We didn't spread lies about Russia, so there is no reason for us to offer Gerth's article.  And it's not being banned on FACEBOOK and Twitter.  People are sharing it -- people who want to.  It is not the same thing as the government working to suppress a newspaper article.  And the government did work to suppress it.  


It should be remembered that the article didn't just emerge out of nowhere.  Already questions were being raised about Hunter's dealings.  Sarah Chayes had rightly called out the unethical nature of Hunter's business dealings.  Joe was going around saying A) His son did nothing wrong and B) His son did nothing illegal.  His son clearly did something wrong.  Legality is a matter for the courts.  Into this world, THE POST broke their story.  And it was a valid story.  But instead of exploring the facts, it became attack and silence THE NEW YORK POST.

In September of 2020, at THE ATLANTIC, Sarah Chayes wrote:

Let’s start with Hunter Biden. In April 2014, he became a director of Burisma, the largest natural-gas producer in Ukraine. He had no prior experience in the gas industry, nor with Ukrainian regulatory affairs, his ostensible purview at Burisma. He did have one priceless qualification: his unique position as the son of the vice president of the United States, newborn Ukraine’s most crucial ally. Weeks before Biden came on, Ukraine’s government had collapsed amid a popular revolution, giving its gas a newly strategic importance as an alternative to Russia’s, housed in a potentially democratic country. Hunter’s father was comfortably into his second term as vice president—and was a prospective future president himself.
There was already a template, in those days, for how insiders in a gas-rich kleptocracy could exploit such a crisis using Western “advisers” to facilitate and legitimize their plunder—and how those Westerners could profit handsomely from it. A dozen-plus years earlier, amid the collapse of the U.S.S.R. of which Ukraine was a part, a clutch of oligarchs rifled the crown jewels of a vast nation. We know some of their names, in some cases because of the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office: Oleg Deripaska, Viktor Vekselberg, Dmitry Rybolovlev, Leonard Blavatnik. That heist also was assisted by U.S. consultants, many of whom had posts at Harvard and at least one of whom was a protégé of future Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
Burisma’s story is of that stripe. The company had been founded by Mykola Zlochevsky, who, as Yanukovych’s minister of ecology and natural resources, had overseen Ukraine’s fossil-fuel deposits. When Hunter Biden joined Burisma’s board, $23 million of Zlochevsky’s riches were being frozen by the British government in a corruption probe. Zlochevsky fled Ukraine. The younger Biden enlisted his law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, to provide what The New Yorker describes as “advice on how to improve the company’s corporate governance.” Eventually, the asset freeze on Zlochevsky was lifted. Deripaska defeated U.S. sanctions with similar help from other high-profile Americans.
Recently, Hunter Biden told The New Yorker that “the decisions that I made were the right decisions for my family and for me” and suggested Trump was merely using him as the “tip of the spear” to undermine Joe Biden politically. There are no indications that Hunter’s activities swayed any decision his father made as vice president. Joe Biden did pressure Ukraine’s fledgling post-Yanukovych president to remove a public prosecutor—as part of concerted U.S. policy. So did every other Western government and dozens of Ukrainian and international pro-democracy activists. The problem was not that the prosecutor was too aggressive with corrupt businessman-politicians like Hunter Biden’s boss; it was that he was too lenient.


Attention had been on how Hunter had used his father's influence -- without Joe's knowledge or participation, Joe insisted back then -- and here was Hunter's abandoned laptop with various details on it.  

The response was to attack. 

Why?

They didn't want Donald Trump re-elected.  I didn't want that to happen either but we covered the laptop here because it was news.  And because I trust people to be mature enough to vote for who they want to vote.  The only wasted vote is a vote you don't believe in.  I don't mean years later, I don't think we're a nation of psychics. That's the only wasted vote.  And not voting is also a vote.  Sorry, poli sci major as an undergrad (double majored as an under grad, triple majored in grad school).  We are not the USSR so I'd never be proud of a 100% voter turnout or even a 90%.  We're a democracy where we have the right to vote.  And if someone earns your vote, you'll vote for them -- provided you can jump through all the hurdles which include registration, changing locations, understaffed locations, etc, etc.  I'm all for a voting holiday -- a national holiday.  Even then, I wouldn't expect 100% voter turnout or see that as a good thing.  100% of the people aren't following the issues and shouldn't be voting.  Again, the USSR had huge voter turnout.  I never thought that was a good thing or actually reflective of the people's belief in that system.

'Oh, no, you critiqued the USSR!'  I critique all governments.  

A major story emerges immediately before an election and the corporate press -- and the trashy beggar media like THE NATION, et al -- work to silence the story.  

If that doesn't bother AOC then she is even more stupid than I thought she was.

This was an attack on the freedom of the press.  It was also the press picking who they wanted to spin for.  And Donald Trump supporters aren't the only ones bothered by it.  But, yes, Donald's supporters are bothered by it -- as is Donald himself -- and he and his supporters have every reason to be upset.  AOC wants the press to treat her like a national celebrity but she doesn't want to be a national politician.  If she did, she'd stop offering lies and grasp that whole groups of people will never listen to her or trust her because of garbage like ""


"A whole hearing about a 24 hiccup in a right-wing political operation! We could be talking about health care, bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, abortion rights, voting rights, civil rights, but instead we're talking about Hunter Biden's half-baked laptop story" -- she declared.  It's not an either/or.  You can talk about those things and pursue what took place with regards to the laptop.  Is she afraid it might make her late to The Met.  Does she have another trashy outfit to put on?  Exactly what is the hearing keeping her from that's so important?

Nothing.  

She's lying and dismissing because she doesn't like the reality of the laptop.  By attacking and dismissing, she can distract others and possibly avoid dealing with it.

Corruption needs to be called out.  And if she doesn't get that Congress is obligated to provide oversight with regards to potential corruption, that bad hair dye she's been using must be leaking through her scalp onto her brain.  I'm always amazed by someone who will spend a fortune on an outfit but, when it comes to her hair, goes for something out of the box that she can do at home.  Not knocking anyone who has no choice in the matter due to economics but AOC doesn't have budget issues.


I'm tired of it.  I'm tired of the dishonesty.  


I don't like members of Congress who mistake our lives as their partisan fight.  I'm tired of all the spinning.  Again, if Liked spinning and lying and partisan fights, I'd be a Republican.


Hunter Biden used his father -- his father's name and, yes, access to his father -- to make money.  That's unethical.  It's a real issue.  And since we now know Joe knew about it, it also goes to corruption above Hunter.  

US House Rep Barbara Lee is a constant embarrassment and this continued today as she insisted -- offering no proof -- that this hearing was going to allow people to get a pass on using speech that incites.  I'm not sure that 76 year old Barbara understands, first off, the internet and, second off, how Twitter works.  Everything on there is basically inciting something.  That is how Twitter works -- or doesn't work.  We've always had laws on the books -- laws that still exist today -- to address any truly inciting speech.  And I'm not sure that Americans want to turn over the censoring tools to the likes of Barbie Lee.  

She's bothered, she insisted, by the treatment of the poor Twitter employees.  

Why doesn't she deal with their actions.  I don't give a damn about Yoel Roth's 'hard times.'  He did actions at Twitter that he shouldn't have.  Does that mean he should have been smeared as a pedophile?  No and we called that out here in real time.  But don't confuse two responses: Harsh critique and response from the people over his role in the censorship and then a response from people who always run crazy on every topic.  

Eleanor Holmes Norton.  Is there a reason that stupid and elderly woman (85) is still in Congress.  I know she's got no real power, she's the DC delegte, but she's an idiot and she's a liar.  In late 2009, I lost all use for her.  She'd been lying to the press for months about something that on the face of it was obviously a lie.  And then a Barack appointee comes before the Committee and Eleanor goes into the lie and thee man stops her and correct her.  Later that day, she's back before reporters repeating the lie as though the expert witness from Barack's administration hadn't just corrected her on the claim she's been falsely making.  (It was a lie that Matthew Rothschild pimped at THE PROGRESSIVE as well.  They were heavily invested in the lie.)

Eleanor decried that the hearing was about partisanship while . . . making the hearing about partisanship.

It was "a match to a powder keg," she insited looking like the senile, old fool she's always been.

The playbook the Democrats were working from was to distract from reality and to try to get a 'win' for the new gipper Joe Biden.

They weren't working for the people -- despite the House long being seen as the people's House.  

And it's disgusting.

THE NEW YORK POST was censored.  The laptop has been 'vetted' by THE NEW YORK TIMES, POLITICO and THE WASHINGTON POST.  Yes, they and other outlets waited years to do so but we all know -- unless we're liars like AOC -- that the laptop is for real.

Who did AOC, Eleanor and others think they were reaching?

They sat there raving about Joe Biden's snazzy wardrobe while most of the country already knew the emperor had no clothes on.

They just lied.  And the lie had already been exposed as a lie long before the hearing.  So they worked from a playbook that made a large part of the country yesterday see them as liars -- see them as they really were, I guess.  

I don't see how that is good for the Democratic Party but I know it's not good for democracy.

Donald Trump, while president, asked Twitter to censor.  That emerged in the hearing. 

Good, call that out.  It needs to be called out.   It needs to be expanded on.  

We need to know all the censorship that has taken place. 

Which is why more hearings are necessary.

But grasp that when you sit through a hearing attacking a known fact repeatedly and then your ears perk up over Donald also doing something wrong -- no one sees you as trustworthy or fair.  And, thing is, you're not a star in a reality show, you're a member of Congress and, as such, you need to have some integrity.  When you demonstrate -- when you sport -- your whorish side in front of the people, don't expect anyone to show you any respect.  Whores get money, whores get gifts, but they don't get respect.

"There's a peace action coming up and you're not promoting it!"

No, I'm not promoting that 'peace' action.  THE VANGUARD did a great job in the video below covering the problems with that action.





At the end of last month, we wrote "David Swanson finds his Maddie Albright moment" at THIRD:

 

With 935 words, you'd think David Swanson could make a point.  You'd think.  

"How Dare I Oppose War with Libertarians" is how you find the column but, grasp, even if you find the column, you'll never find the point.

He's getting complaints, he writes, for announcing he'll be speaking at an anti-war rally with Libertarians.

Which Libertarians is the obvious question.

This isn't just about the government's war, a fact that escapes David.

A lot changed on June 24, 2022.  Prior to that, we could easily speak with non-leftists against the war.  There were rights and legal protections.

Then DOBBS was handed down and ROE V WADE was struck down while Justico Clarry Thomas made clear in his concurring opinion that he now wanted to take on birth control rights (do away with them), to take on marriage equality (do away with it) and to take on what two adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom.  Justico Thomas -- a huge consumer of porn -- suddenly sees himself monitoring every bed room.   
 

No, we're not going to stand next to anti-abortion crazies, homophobes or people who want to terrorize trans persons.

Is that who David is going to be standing with?  We have no idea because, despite using 935 words, he never names any speaker he'll be appearing with on stage.

That does make us wonder: Is he doing that intentionally?  Does he grasp that he has to cover these people up or he won't get support?

We have no idea but without knowing who he is standing with, in the climate we now live in, he's on his own and he made it that way.  


We found out who he is standing with and it's homophobes and it's registered sex offender Scott Ritter and so many other disasters.

Aaron Mate, did you read the comments to THE VANGUARD segment?  One of your fan bois is hoping you would never stand with Scott Ritter.  They missed the part where you already had stood with him, had brought the convicted sex offender on your program THE GREY ZONE and promoted him (and never noted his conviction).  

THE VANGUARD didn't really go into that.  I think they were being kind.  But a lot of people on the left who were participating and have now dropped out because of the backlash?  They've been embracing Scott Ritter for the last year.  We've been calling them out for that right here.  

THE VANGUARD wrongly praised BLACK AGENDA REPORT for calling the faux-test out.  One article that didn't mention names called the faux-test out . . . for being White.  The reality is that BAR's Danny had Scott Ritter as a guest on the LEFT LENS over five times in the last six months of 2022 and that BAR published Scott Ritter as 2022 was winding down.  Margaret Kimberley reTweeted him.  

Too many people have decided to get into bed with a pedophile.  That's on them.  But don't make the mistake that THE VANGUARD did of thinking people have called Ritter out when they haven't, when instead they've promoted him.



The following sites updated:




Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)