Thursday, June 11, 2020

THE FANTASTICKS

NBC scored big with their live production of THE SOUND OF MUSIC and THE WIZ, FOX with GREASE. Other notables? THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, RENT, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, THE LITTLE MERMAID LIVE!, A CHRISTMAS STORY and the hideous PETER PAN LIVE! Most of the efforts were based on stage productions (THE ROCKY HORROR SHOW started as a film, the GREASE production owed more to the film than the original Broadway production).

HAIR and BYE-BYE BIRDIE were planned but then cancelled.

In this group post, we are all picking a play or movie that we think would make a good live TV production.

I'll go with THE FANTASTICKS. 

A bad movie was made of the musical.  So most people have never seen the musical unless they saw it on stage.



Barbra wasn't in the musical but she did record one of the best known songs from the musical, "Much More." 

The movie was large and overblown.  Cast well, this could make a strong TV production.



"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Wednesday, June 10, 2020.  More on the US plane that crashed in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr returns to an old cry, the US and Iraqi representatives begin meetings today to outline future steps, and much more.



THE WYOMING TRIBUNE EAGLE notes, "A Wyoming Air National Guard member and three others were injured after a cargo plane crashed in Iraq."  Yesterday's snapshot noted the US cargo plane crash in Iraq that left at least four on board injured:


A US military transport plan has crashed in Baghdad leaving at least four service members injured.  The US military says the plane "overshot the runway" while the Iraqi Revolutionary Group states it shot the plane down.










Of the four injured, Stephen Losey (AIR FORCE TIMES) notes, "The service members’ injuries were not life-threatening, and they are being treated at the base’s medical facility, according to a release by Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve."  THE DRIVE adds, "The C-130H, which is assigned to the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, crashed at Taji, which is situated approximately 17 miles north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, at around 10:10 PM local time."


Of the wounded from Wyoming, AP notes:
 The Wyoming Guard member’s condition wasn’t available but wasn’t life-threatening, Wyoming Military Department spokesman Rusty Ridley said Tuesday.
Three of the four hurt were released after treatment, Ridley added.
Though crewed by the Wyoming Air National Guard, the plane wasn’t among the Guard’s C-130s. U.S. military officials said they didn’t suspect hostile activity but were investigating. 


Spanish troops are planning to withdraw from a strategic Iraqi military base in southeast of Baghdad at the end of this summer, according to the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS) group.

In an official statement sent to Rudaw on early Wednesday, the US-led coalition announced the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Besmaya Range Complex, a military base in southeastern Baghdad province that is under the control of the US-led coalition.

“In the late summer, Spanish troops will be withdrawn from the Besmaya Range Complex, Iraq. The base is one of the Building Partner Capacity centers run by the US-led international anti-ISIS Coalition,” the statement reads.


Iraqis have called for the US to leave their country.  One who has long made that call is Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.  THE NEW ARAB notes he has renewed his call:

Prominent Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on the US to remove its "occupying forces" from the country, just hours after four American soldiers were injured in an attack on a military base in Baghdad.
The Shia Muslim cleric demanded Washington "withdraw its occupying forces from all countries, especially Iraq, in a manner the preserves peoples’ prestige and dignity".
"I think it's necessary for America to change its hostile and arrogant approach with its people first and the people of the world, second," Sadr said in a statement, addressing recent anti-racism protests in the US.

Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) insists, "But more importantly, Sadr is a major political player in Iraq, and the Iraqi parliament wants the US out of the country. Pushing this position is an obvious position to take, and one that makes clear that a violent US reaction would be unwelcome."

No.

Moqtada is not "a major political player."  He was.  In 2012, he was rebuilding his brand.  By 2016, he was a very important player.  But he lost that power by a series of idiotic and stupid moves.  Originally, he supported the protests in the fall of 2019.  Then he withdrew his support in January, then he returned it maybe, then he withdrew it again, then he insisted that men and women should not protest together and then . . .

Iraq has a young population.  They are laughing at him.  They mocked him in the protests after his call for men and women to protest separately.  He has not been able to come back from that moment so far.  He might at some point, but right now he remains a joke.  He had supporters, now he has a small cult.

No one listened to him before on his call for the US to withdraw.  I doubt he expects the US to listen now.  But he does see it as a cry that got him attention and support so that might be why he's making it now.

Yesterday's snapshot included this:


Mustafa Habib notes another political twist:

Wild move, Iraqi PM Al-Kadhimi appoints judge Raed Jouhi as the director of the his office, Jouhi became known as he issued judicial warrant to arrest Muqtada Sadr in 2003 for the murder of Majid al-Khoei, & he the first judge who investigate with Saddam Hussein after his arrest


Moqtada has regularly and repeatedly fled to Iran since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.  During the years Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, the fleeing was so he could avoid arrest.  Now the person responsible for issuing that arrest warrant is part of the prime minister's office?  That's got to worry Moqtada.

And the terrorism of gay men and men suspected of being gay is something he got away with in Nouri al-Maliki's second term but it's not something the young people of Iraq are embracing.  Human Rights Watch's Belkis Willie notes:

An important report from
documenting the most recent wave of attacks against LGBT people in #Iraq, particularly by Moqtada al-Sadr, that according to the org has led to the killings of six young LGBT+ members since May 17



In Baghdad, there has been a non-stop barrage of criticism of the US-Iraqi talks beginning today.
The criticism and smear tactics have gone on despite the fact that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi went out on a limb to clarify matters for the political parties and the public in general.
According to unofficial information, the US-Iraq Strategic Dialogue starts Wednesday and will continue Thursday.
The final phases of the preparations for the dialogue were completed with US Ambassador Matthew Toler paying a visit to the new Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein on Monday, according to informed sources.
Iran’s allies in Iraq are trying to hammer home the idea that the Baghdad-Washington talks are focusing on the status of American forces in the country, while Kadhimi’s team has suggested that economic development will be the top priority.
FOREIGN BRIEF offers, "A major component of the talks today will consider US efforts aimed at diminishing Iran’s influence in Iraq as part of Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign. For Iraqi policymakers, the focus is expected to be the question of whether to request the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq or to seek to keep those troops in country until the Islamic State has been completely defeated and ousted from the country; Iraqis are sharply divided on the issue."


May 7th, Mustafa Al-Kadhimi became the latest prime minister of Iraq.  His is supposed to be a brief term, his main goal being to set up elections.  REUTERS' John Davison Tweets:


Iraq’s newish PM Mustafa Kadhimi is taking press on his first tour since he formed his full govt - to Mosul and its surroundings. Mins of reconstruction, culture and others are also here. #iraq 1/


It’s a whistle-stop tour. Been to Q West air base (recently exited by US troops), Nineveh ops command, Nuri mosque (where ISIS leader Baghdadi declared a caliphate), multi-ethnic and religious Bartella, and shortly an IDP camp and a church 2/


The new PM’s message so far: Mosul and Nineveh like the rest of Iraq need to be restored; Iraq’s strength will be its plurality; Iraq is in this state because of both Saddam and the leadership and governing post-2003. ‘Mismanagement’ is a word he keeps repeating 3/



There’s a lot of hope being placed on Kadhimi’s government by senior officials and Western capitals. He’s being projected by his own office as a strong, non-sectarian leader who can row back foreign influence including Iran and its miltias, especially with US help 4/


But Kadhimi was brought in by the same parties which many Iraqis allege have ruined the country and which have clung onto real power despite mas protests. He does not have his own party. Some see him as just as hamstrung as his predecessor Abdul Mahdi. 5/

So no matter how strong Kadhimi is, it will require a heck of a lot more to change Iraq’s current course. Corruption is so entrenched, and foreign powers continue to compete over influence here. And the parties and militias are still here fighting over reducing resources. 6/

A visit to Mosul is a strong statement 6 years after ISIS took it. But his meetings with sheikhs and leaders and officials reveal a litany of complaints and demands that any government would find it hard to address. 7/

Reuters will soon be publishing a report about why it’s so difficult to get a city like Mosul off the ground, how we got here, and what that means for Iraq. Stay tuned. END


Mustafa Al-Kadhimi has promised change.  He's made a lot of statements about the protesters right to protest, about releasing them from prisons, about investigating the assaults carried out against them . . . Lots of pretty words.  But what's changed?


What's changed now that Mustafa is prime minister?  Apparently, not one damn thing.




ALJAZEERA reports on how corruption is effecting farming in Iraq.







The following sites updated:








  • Tuesday, June 09, 2020

    Roger from AMERICAN DAD


    Can't it just be like when we were kids?  Oh, Frannie, we'd draw pictures with red oceans and green skies and be who we wanted and then play in the sprinklers until Mama called us for supper.

    I am not feeling well.  Which isn't why I typed the above.  I typed the above because crazy Roger can always make me smile.

    That's from AMERICAN DAD, season 11, episode 12 "The Dentist's Wife."  Roger feels all of his personas are fake and worthless after he meets Meredith -- a dentist's wife.  He decides to become Meredith.  When she balks at the notion, he 'barges' her.  (Dumps her on a barge.)  Then he takes over her life.

    When Roger doesn't go home, Francine shows up at Meredith's and that's where she discovers Roger dressed as Meredith making the remarks about green skies and red oceans.

    Prompting Francine to ask, "Are you having a stroke?"

    Roger really is my all time favorite animinated character. 

    A little Roger and I already feel less weighed down and troubled. Other episodes that make me laugh would include "Julia Rogerts," "The Enlightenment of Ragi-Baba," "A Boy Named Michael," "A Star Is Reborn" (just for Roger's obsession with the TV show BONES), "News Glance With Genevieve Vavance," "The People vs. Martin Sugar," "Jenny Fromdabloc," "Shallow Vows," "The One That Got Away," "Family Affair," "Stan's Night Out" (for Hayley and Roger's competition in the food court),  "Frannie 911," "A.T. the Abusive Terrestrial," "Wild Women Do," "Roger's Baby" and "Widow's Pique."


    "Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
    Tuesday, June 9, 2020.  A US military plane crashes in Iraq, a Moqtada al-Sadr foe gets a prominent position in the new Iraqi government, and much more.



    A US military transport plan has crashed in Baghdad leaving at least four service members injured.  The US military says the plane "overshot the runway" while the Iraqi Revolutionary Group states it shot the plane down.










    Of the four injured, Stephen Losey (AIR FORCE TIMES) notes, "The service members’ injuries were not life-threatening, and they are being treated at the base’s medical facility, according to a release by Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve."  THE DRIVE adds, "The C-130H, which is assigned to the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, crashed at Taji, which is situated approximately 17 miles north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, at around 10:10 PM local time. "




    Holly Johnston (RUDAW) explains, "Taji military base,  located north of Baghdad, hosts US military personnel in the country to advise and train troops in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS)."

    Over the weekend, journalist Mustafa Habib offered his thoughts on a US withdrawal from Iraq:

    The US will likely have one main goal, curtail Iran influence. To achieve this, the US should support Iraqi govt with medical & economic crises. The success of govt which is generally not close to Iran influencers, would be one way to enhance Iraqi sovereignty & independence...


    The US shouldn’t withdraw all of its soldiers from Iraq, only the combat units that so anger Iran. It should leave advisers & trainers together w members of global coalition, to provide air cover & intelligence that can aid Iraqi anti-terrorism troops in fight against extremists

    Should the US troops be forced to withdraw will make a lack of international partners could see the Shiite forces loyal to Iran getting stronger, even in Sunni cities, and it would also jeopardise the new Iraqi govt’s ability to run the country & to hold elections.


    The Iraqi people have long favored all US troops leave Iraq.  Some in the Iraqi government agree with that, some do not.  Those who do not tend to realize that the US military presence props up the government in Iraq.  It has not represented the people -- hence the protests -- it has not made life better for the Iraqi people.  It maintains power only because of the US forces on the ground.

    When ISIS seized control of Mosul, for example, then-US President Barack Obama didn't really give a damn.  When it was thought that ISIS was about to seize Baghdad, Barack began ordering more US troops into Iraq.

    US officials gave lip service to 'democracy' and 'self-rule' but they never meant it.  Nouri al-Maliki was put in place by Bully Boy Bush because his CIA profile noted how paranoid Nouri was and how that could be used to control him.  With no experience at all, Nouri was made prime minister.  He was a disaster.  

    In 2010, the Iraqi people went to the polls and voted him out.  But not only would Nouri refuse to step down, the US government also backed the thug up.  Joe Biden went to Iraq to sell a contract (The Erbil Agreement) that overturned the votes and gave Nouri a second term.

    This was never about democracy.

    Joe's actions would result in Nouri feeling more emboldened and he would become even more of a thug.  ISIS would rise in Iraq as a result.  Joe Biden is the mid-wife to ISIS.  

    At some point, the US press might get around to addressing that.  And since Joe is now seeking votes, maybe ask him how he'd feel if he won in November and Iraq's government stepped in and overturned the results?

    As for Mustafa Habib, I don't doubt that his intentions are sincere.  But the reality is that the training wheels have to come off at some point.  The alternative is that Iraq is occupied by US forces forever.  Had the governments of Iraq not been so corrupt, they could have taken even small steps that would develop some form of a relationship with the Iraqi people.  They chose not to dot hat.  They have no real roots and they will be knocked over when the Iraqi people are in charge.

    US forces should not be used to keep in place a do-nothing government that exploits and attacks its own people.


    Karwan Faidhi Dri (RUDAW) reports, "A rocket landed late Monday near Baghdad International Airport, according to the Iraqi Security Media Cell. "  AFP notes:

    A rocket landed inside Baghdad airport near to where US forces are based in the latest attack on American forces in the country, the Iraqi military said on Monday night.
    While a wave of similar attacks that began in October has since slowed, the latest strike came three days ahead of US-Iraqi talks as part of a "strategic dialogue" including on future military co-operation.
    A security official told AFP that the attack caused "no casualties or damage".
    Baghdad International Airport is closed under coronavirus lockdown measures in Iraq, which has reported some 13,000 cases including 400 deaths from the disease.
    Monday's rocket fire was the 29th such attack against American troops or diplomats since October.


    Meanwhile, protests continue in Iraq.



    That's video from Sunday in Najaf.  MIDDLE EAST MONITOR ONLINE notes

    Violent clashes between protestors and police in Iraq erupted in front of local government headquarters in the country’s Najaf governorate yesterday, with demands including government reforms and the identification of those who previously killed demonstrators.
    According to Iraqi media, the confrontations reached all the way to the home of Najaf’s Governor Luay Al-Yasiri, which was set on fire while several members of the security forces were injured by the protestors.
    Among the protestors’ demands was for Al-Yasiri, his deputies, and the directors of the governorate’s districts to be dismissed by the Iraqi government. Witnesses reported that police and security forces fired live bullets and tear gas at the protestors to disperse them, while the governorate’s police department called on the protestors to exercise restraint and to prevent their ranks from being exploited by “infiltrators”.

    On Twitter, Sally notes:
     
    serious injuries now could lead to amputation among the demonstrators as a result of violent repression by the repressive forces. And cases of suffocation in the ranks of the demonstrators


    Heshmat Alavi explains that "tear gas and live bullets" were used on the protesters.


    Angry protesters took to the streets of southern Iraq on Monday to vent their frustration with a lack of public services and employment opportunities, calling for the dismissal of local officials.
    Hundreds of demonstrators from the southern cities of Najaf, Muthanna, Diwaniyah and Nasiriyah clashed with Iraqi security forces amid a revival of the anti-government protests that erupted last October.
    “The movement, which is now synchronised between the southern governorates, is now demanding the resignation of officials, especially the dismissal of Najaf Governor Louay Al Yasiri,” an Iraqi official told The National.
    Riot police gathered in front of government buildings in Najaf late on Sunday to block protesters from entering the building, leading to violent clashes between the two.
    The mostly young protesters accuse the political establishment of rampant corruption and are demanding an end to a political system that is divided along sectarian and ethnic lines. 


    The mostly young protesters accuse the political establishment of rampant corruption and are demanding an end to a political system that is divided along sectarian and ethnic lines.
    The Iraqi Human Rights Commission called on the government to refrain from using violence against protesters.
    “This is a constitutional right [for people to protest] and we urge the government to respond to the economic and social rights that protesters are demanding,” Ali Al Bayati, a member of the commission told The National.
    “These claims have been made before but have not been implemented although we lost many lives due to months of instability so it’s very important for the new government to provide a main source of livelihood for the public,” Mr Al Bayati said.
    We'll note Parliament later in the week but we have to note this from Zhelwan Z. Wali (RUDAW):

    The Iraqi Parliament has approved the resignation of prominent Shiite leader and head of the Fatah Alliance Hadi al-Amiri, rumoured to be eyeing the presidency of the Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).
    Amiri sent his letter of resignation to Speaker Mohammed al-Halbousi on June 1, and was officially replaced on Saturday by his assistant Abdulkarim Younis Elan - who is yet to be sworn in.
    Though it remains unclear as to what prompted Amiri to resign from the parliament, it is rumored that he is vying for the post of head of the PMF, known as Hashd al-Shaabi in Arabic. 
    Hadi al-Amiri is a thug.  If you've never seen photos of him, he's also very ugly.  Very.  Ugly.  And we're noting the above because I can't stop laughing as I survey Arab social media and keep seeing jokes about how he's really resigned from Parliament because he plans to run for Miss Iraq.  

    Mustafa Habib notes another political twist:

    Wild move, Iraqi PM Al-Kadhimi appoints judge Raed Jouhi as the director of the his office, Jouhi became known as he issued judicial warrant to arrest Muqtada Sadr in 2003 for the murder of Majid al-Khoei, & he the first judge who investigate with Saddam Hussein after his arrest

    What message do you suppose that's intended to send to Moqtada al-Sadr?


    With a great deal of rhetoric accompanied by a political stunt, the Democratic congressional leadership on Monday released its “Justice in Policing 2020” bill.
    Prior to the press conference to present the measure, more than 20 Democratic lawmakers, all wearing African kente cloths, knelt in the Capitol’s Emancipation Hall for eight minutes and 46 seconds, the amount of time fired Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kept his knee on the neck of George Floyd, killing the 46-year-old African American worker.
    The group of Democrats included House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, Black Congressional Caucus Chairwoman Karen Bass and senators Corey Booker and Kamala Harris.
    At the press conference, Bass, Pelosi, Schumer and other sponsors of the bill repeatedly cited the nationwide mass demonstrations against the murder of Floyd and touted their bill as a “transformational” and “bold” attack on police violence and systemic racism. But their statements and the token character of the reforms included in the bill make clear that the measure is nothing of the kind.
    Rather, it is a political maneuver designed to provide cover for Democratic governors and mayors who have overseen brutal police attacks on protesters, not to mention the pro-police record of the Obama administration. It is also aimed at containing and dissipating social protests by workers and youth against not only racism and the fascistic Trump administration, but also the social inequality, repression and poverty that are embedded in the capitalist system and magnified by the coronavirus pandemic.


    New content at THIRD:



    The following sites updated:








    Is Krystal Ball trying to Dick her Cheney? Not into sell outs.

    Is anyone else getting tired of RISING?

    I don't mind the conservative guy. I don't get too worked up over conservatives. I know I'm going to disagree with them. But Krystal Ball?

    A couple of months back, JACOBIN insisted Krystal was the anti-Rachel Maddow or some such nonsense. Huh? In what world would that be a compliment?

    But she's useless. That's becoming Everclear. Pour a shot and slam it down.

    Last week, she started pimping for Joe Biden and continued it today. I have no respect for that b.s. The only time Joe Biden is ever the answer is when the question is: Who can you count on to kill Muslims?

    Maybe Krystal Ball just wants to hang with Collie Powell, Bully Boy Bush and Condi Rice? Or maybe she wants to Dick her Cheney?

    I have no idea.

    But I didn't watch RISING to be told who to vote for or to hear fluff about Joe Biden. I expected more than that. Much more.

    But, hey, this is the woman who dropped Tara Reade's story once pigs like Micheal Tracey made Tara toxic. Tara made a credible accusation and the accusation remains credible. But scared babies like Krystal run from Tara. Maybe next time, if you're going to be such a coward, try checking out the people you invite on.

    Or should I say, "the men you invite on."

    Ryan Grim and countless other men regularly appear on RISING. Women? Not really so much.




    "Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
    Monday, June 8, 2020.  The Iraq War continues because War Mongers like Joe Biden reach out only to other War Criminals.




              
    Sir Keir Starmer’s links to Britain’s national security establishment are being questioned. But in reality they illustrate that normal service has been resumed in UK ‘democracy’ and that Labour can again be ‘trusted’ to govern.
    The investigative journalist Matt Kennard has written an open letter to the new Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, asking five questions about his relationship to the national security establishment.  
    They involve meetings Starmer had with the head of the domestic security service, MI5; his membership of the intelligence-linked Trilateral Commission; his discussions with the US attorney general at a time when Starmer was handling the case of Julian Assange; his role in the Assange case as the public prosecutor; and his relationship with the neocon Times newspaper.
    The suggestion is clear: Starmer has been very close to that establishment.
    No doubt some will be shocked by the information Kennard has managed to unearth, but if we consider how UK ‘democracy’ is supposed to function, it is really not too surprising. Parties are allowed to argue about the details of domestic policy, but there is meant to be no real disagreement on matters pertaining to foreign policy and national security. In other words, UK politics should be just like America’s. 
    For a long time, that was indeed the case.

    History of bombing

    It was a Labour government which took Britain into Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, and a Republican administration that did the same for the US. It was a Conservative government which bombed Libya in 2011 – and a Democratic one in the US. A bi-partisan approach to bombing countries: a bi-partisan approach to ‘regime-change’ ops. Elections won’t disrupt this: the more things change, the more they stay the same.  
    But in 2013, there was a wobble. To the horror of the endless war lobby, Labour, under Ed Miliband, voted against bombing Syria. Two years later, even worse for Rupert Murdoch and the ‘Deep State,’ a veteran Stop the War activist called Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader.
    Corbyn’s back catalogue was decidedly problematic. He had spoken out against every Western military intervention. He was very pro-Palestinian. He didn’t like nukes. He had praised Venezuela. Worse still, Corbyn appointed as his director of strategy and communications one Seumas Milne, a former Guardian journalist well-known for his fluent denunciations of Western foreign policy. 
    Operation Stop Corbyn was launched. Many Corbynistas believed it was Jezza’s economic policies which provoked the onslaught, but it was where he stood, or had stood, on foreign policy issues and ‘national security’ which meant he was in for the political equivalent of ‘Shock and Awe.’

    Establishment agenda

    The smart thing for Corbyn to have done would have been to go on the front foot and articulate how the national security establishment’s agenda of promoting ‘regime-change’ conflicts against secular Middle Eastern countries was actually endangering the security of British citizens.
    When quizzed by Andrew Neil in 2017 about his earlier comments that NATO was a danger to world peace, the Labour leader could have mentioned how the bombardment of Libya had turned the country into a jihadist training camp on the shores of the Mediterranean – which had deadly consequences for British tourists holidaying in Tunisia in 2015.
    Instead he muttered, rather tamely, that he wanted to work within NATO to ‘promote a human rights democracy.’ 

    Short of dressing up in combat fatigues and calling for a full-scale military invasion of Syria, while waving a copy of the Times in one hand and John McCain’s memoirs in the other, Corbyn was never going to convince the national security establishment that he could be trusted to follow the neocon agenda. 
    His attempts to edge away from his previously espoused views didn’t work, and his acceptance of a second EU referendum policy – pushed on him by his opponents – proved disastrous.

    Starmer brings relief

    But as soon as he was replaced by Sir Keir Starmer, a man with a very different resume, the pressure on Labour relented.

    That's in England.  Are we so deluded we don't see similar actions in the US?  Corbyn?  Bernie Sanders was his stand-in here in the United States.  Bernie watched as his campaign was circumvented by the media (overtly) and by Barack Obama and others behind the scenes.

    Instead of standing up for the values he espoused while running, he now offers meek little criticisms while telling everyone to rally around War Hawk Joe Biden.

    There was a movement behind Bernie Sanders.  How very sad that he betrayed.  Even more sad, only Jimmy Dore appears to be comfortable telling that truth.

    John Stauber offers:

    I am hoping that Crazy Joe picks ⁦
    ⁩ for VP! All the despicable #WeaponsOfMassDeception gang on one ticket!

    It's very telling who Joe Biden's constituency is.  Neocons like Bill Kristol. Liars like David Frum. Trash like War Criminal Colin Powell.  Collie lied to the United Nations in order to help start the Iraq War.  (See Ava and my "TV Review: Barbara and Colin remake The Way We Were.")  He was part of a team of liars that also included Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, John Bolton and Bully Boy Bush among others.  He's gone on to lie about his lies.  And yet today he wanted to whine about Donald Trump lying.  Sarah Abdallah observes:

    Colin Powell, who lied to the entire world about WMDs in Iraq, paving the way for an illegal war that killed and displaced millions of innocents, gave rise to ISIS, and destabilized the Middle East, is actually out here today lecturing us about lies.


    Why did CNN put that piece of trash on to begin with?  He's a known liar.  He's never helped anyone but himself.  He lied about Vietnam, he lied his whole life.  His hands are soaked in blood.  He's never apologized for that.  Jeffrey St. Clair points out:

    Now that Powell is back in the news & being feted for his courage in calling Trump a liar, it might seem rude to remind liberals that Powell whitewashed the My Lai massacre, a service to the Empire that helped launch the upward trajectory of his career...

    He's also the person who refused to allow openly gay people to serve in the military.  That was what Bill Clinton had promised voters while he campaigned in 1992.  Colin wasn't having it.  That's why Bill proposed Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  In 2010, he was finally for repealing it.  He has never been forced to apologize, nor has he ever faced serious questions about his homophobia.  

    Jake Tapper brought him on CNN Sunday as 'wise' Colin Powell, everybody's friend.  Jake did everything but shove his hand down the front of Colin's pants and give the liar a happy ending.  Jake should be ashamed of himself and so should CNN.  


    Colin Powell’s lies led to the murder of millions in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Colin Powell has as much blood on his hands as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Colin Powell is not a paragon of morality. Colin Powell is a war criminal.


    We have endless wars today and not only are we not, as a country, trying to end them, we're now enshrining the crooks responsible for them.

    Why?

    To prepare for a Biden presidency.  Derek Davison and Alex Thurston (JACOBIN) offer:


    To the consternation of many on the Left, Joe Biden formally secured the Democratic Party’s nomination yesterday. And if polling both nationally and in several key battleground states is accurate, he stands a reasonable chance of defeating Donald Trump to become the 46th president of the United States. As voters consider their options this fall, and as leftists prepare to navigate the next four years, it is reasonable to fast forward a bit to examine what a potential Biden administration might look like.
    There is perhaps no more critical area in which to start strategizing for a future Biden administration than foreign policy. For one thing, the almost unchecked growth of the “imperial presidency” has left the executive branch unchallenged in its control over this arena. Even under Trump, a president whose foreign policy decisions routinely alarm his own political allies, congressional attempts to reclaim some role in foreign affairs have been feeble and easily defeated. If there is any part of a Biden agenda that is likely to be enacted, regardless of the makeup of Congress, it is this one. 

    For another thing, it is on the global front where the greatest challenges of the next presidency will lie. The COVID-19 pandemic has run rampant across Asia, Europe, and the Americas, and continues to pose a threat in places like sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. Moreover, as in past pandemics the threat of a second wave — perhaps even deadlier than the first — will continue to loom unless and until scientists develop a safe and effective treatment and/or vaccine. Perhaps more seriously, recovering from the economic damage the pandemic has wrought will likely take years, and in the meantime that devastation will undoubtedly contribute to escalating instability around the world. This crisis has exposed weaknesses in international institutions and the global economy that must be addressed, lest the world go through it all again the next time it’s confronted with a new and virulent pathogen.
    Lingering in the background of this crisis is the less immediate but more critical threat of climate change. A President Biden will have a profound opportunity either to help reshape global structures in ways that reduce injustice and prepare us for the massive challenges ahead, or to simply restore what has been shown to be a deeply inadequate status quo. In order to do that, he’ll have to rethink the two major driving forces behind US foreign policy: the presumption — whether justified or not — of a “great power competition” between the United States and China, and the never-ending — and increasingly unjustifiable — “war on terror.” Would Joe Biden, who often seems to have been drawn from Central Casting to play the role of “Generic Democrat,” really be willing to break with conventional DC wisdom to solve these international challenges?
    Dishearteningly from a leftist perspective, foreign policy is likely to be one of the areas in which a President Biden would be least susceptible to external pressure. Throughout his lengthy career in the Senate, Joe Biden compiled a sizable and, it must be said, frequently distasteful record on a wide array of issues. But foreign policy was a consistent area of focus for him, and he appears to be particularly confident in his own presumed expertise. Biden served for many years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, rising to become its ranking member in 1997 and serving as chair from 2001 through 2003 and again from 2007 through his inauguration as vice president in 2009.
    In these roles, Biden built a substantial foreign policy record, and very little of it should offer hope to leftists. Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the Iraq War was rightly seen as a mark against her presidential candidacies in 2008 and 2016, but Biden not only voted to authorize that war, he was instrumental in helping to sell the conflict to his Democratic colleagues as well as to the American public. His proposal to impose a “soft partition” on Iraq is another mark against his judgment. As vice president, he was a key part of the Obama administration’s foreign policy team, which expanded the drone war, intensified the futile war in Afghanistan, and involved the United States in disastrous conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
    To be fair, Biden reportedly opposed the 2009 “surge” into Afghanistan and the 2011 intervention in Libya’s civil war. Yet the different stances Biden took at different times do not suggest that his views evolved in a coherent direction; rather, he appears to lack an overarching vision for foreign policy, and to propose ad hoc solutions to problems as they arise. More often than not, his stances fit within the sort of “liberal interventionism” that has defined mainstream Democratic Party foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. His feel-good talk of adopting a more progressive approach and headlining an “FDR-size presidency” notwithstanding, it’s likely with such an established record on international affairs that he will prefer to keep his own counsel and to surround himself with familiar advisers on the subject.
    Moreover, any attempt to predict how a Biden administration will approach foreign policy must contend with one overarching truth: foreign policy is as much reactive as it is proactive. We can predict a few challenges that Biden would encounter immediately; he’d likely push to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, for example, and would probably move to restore and/or renegotiate the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. By the same token, we can imagine where he’d be likely to continue Trump policies — he’s already said he’ll maintain Trump’s decision to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, for example, a theme we return to below.
    With this in mind, what might a Biden presidency foreign-policy agenda look like? Certainly, his campaign’s vague promises of “restoring dignified leadership” and “leading the democratic world” give us few meaningful clues, and various Biden foreign policy think pieces from the liberal establishment should be taken more as wish lists than as firm agendas.
    There’s a frequently used saying in Washington that “personnel is policy.” That may not be entirely true in the Trump administration, where personnel are shuffled in and out subject to the capricious whims of an unstable president. But a glance at the names that filled important foreign policy positions under Barack Obama or George W. Bush does indeed speak powerfully to the foreign policy approaches those administrations took.
    And so we can begin to approximate how a Biden-led foreign policy agenda might look, by looking at those people most likely to formulate and implement it. By this approach, those who are hoping for a new era in America’s approach toward the rest of the world are likely to be disappointed. Indeed, if anything it would appear that the DC foreign policy establishment — the “Blob,” as former Obama adviser Ben Rhodes once put it — would be poised to maintain or even strengthen its hold on power under a President Biden.

    This is a major story and one much more important than the daily distraction the press chooses to offer of who-is-Joe-going-to-give-his-rose-to?  This is about life and death and it's clearly beyond the tiny capabilities of the corporate press which is why they bring on Colin Powell and hail him as a hero.  He's a murderer.  He's not the only one being rehabbed.  James Bovard (COUNTERPUNCH) explains:




    Former president George W. Bush has returned to the spotlight to give moral guidance to America in these troubled times. In a statement released on Tuesday, Bush announced that he was “anguished” by the “brutal suffocation” of George Floyd and declared that “lasting peace in our communities requires truly equal justice. The rule of law ultimately depends on the fairness and legitimacy of the legal system. And achieving justice for all is the duty of all.”
    Bush’s declaration was greeted with thunderous applause by the usual suspects who portray him as the Virtuous Republican in contrast to Trump. A CNN headline proclaimed: “George W. Bush finally steps onto the right side of history.” The Washington Post chimed in with this headline: “George W. Bush calls out racial injustices and celebrates protestors.”
    While the media portrays Bush’s pious piffle as visionary triumphs of principle, Americans need to vividly recall the lies and atrocities that permeated Bush’s eight years as president.
    In an October 2017 speech in a “national forum on liberty” at the George W. Bush Institute in New York City, Bush bemoaned: “Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.” Coming from Bush, this had as much credibility as former president Bill Clinton bewailing the decline of chastity.
    Most media coverage of Bush nowadays either ignores the falsehoods he used to take America to war in Iraq or portrays him as a good man who received incorrect information. But Bush was lying from the get-go on Iraq and was determined to drag the nation into another Middle East war. From January 2003 onwards, Bush constantly portrayed the U.S. as an innocent victim of Saddam Hussein’s imminent aggression and repeatedly claimed that war was being “forced upon us.” That was never the case. Bush made “232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda,” as the Center for Public Integrity reported. As the lies by which he sold the Iraq war unraveled, Bush resorted to vilifying critics as traitors in a 2006 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

    A comedian makes a joke and we start screaming for a political campaign to draw a line between themselves and the candidate -- think John Kerry's campaign and Whoopi Goldberg in 2004.  But we're okay with these war criminals?  Why aren't we demanding that Joe Biden disavow Bully Boy Bush, Collie Powell and the rest?

    Maybe because we know he won't.  Joe will always curry their favor.  He loves War Criminals the same way he loves segregationists.  By the way, beggar media, you think you can follow more than one story?  What's going on with the War Hawks backing Joe is a story, a major one.  You might might want to try paying attention.