Saturday, January 27, 2018

Time's up, Hillary

[This piece is written by RebeccaElaineMarciaAnnAva and C.I.]

A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.

So her pet goes on to work for David Brock and the Correct the Record (Hillary front group) and is eventually fired there.

Time’s up, Hillary.

You’ve posed forever and a day as a feminist.

Time’s up.

You covered for Bill Clinton’s behavior and continue to do so.

You ran on his record and you chose to “Stand By Your Man” despite you infamously declaring in 1992 that you weren’t a little woman standing by your man.

So his assaults are now you’re assaults.

You refused to speak to that.

But you stood by him and talked about how victims should be believed.

But you ignored your own husband.

Even limiting it to Monica Lewinsky alone, did you not see the abuse? 

We’re talking a very young woman.

And he wasn’t any older man, he was the President of the United States.

Bill making moves with Sharon Stone?

She’s an experienced adult.

Monica was a 22-year-old.

World of difference.

And yet where are her words of warning, where are her words of regret?

Or maybe she’d like to claim that, as with her vote for the Iraq War, this was all Bully Boy Bush’s fault?

That’s setting aside Paula Jones.

Maybe we shouldn’t?

He settled with her.  The Supreme Court disbarred him as a result of “the Jones issue.”

Maybe Hillary should have something to say there.

The affair with Gennifer Flowers was consensual, so we’ll leave that alone.

There’s Juanita Broaddrick who states she was raped by Bill Clinton and we believe her but clearly Hillary does not.

We repeatedly noted throughout 2016 that if this were any other candidate, this rape would be an issue.

Hillary was married to Bill when the alleged rape took place.

Hillary is still married to him.

Kitty Dukakis was an issue for her drinking when her husband was running.

But Hillary being married to a man publicly accused of rape resulted in no serious coverage.

To this day, no one has asked her about it in a television interview.

She ran for the US Senate.  She ran for re-election to the US Senate.  She ran for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination.  She ran for president in 2016.

Four public campaigns.

And the candidate was never asked about the rape allegation.

And, for the record, Bill has never publicly spoken.  The only ‘statement’ was one delivered by a spokesperson when he was president.

Danny Masterson and Ed Westwick both lost jobs recently based solely on rape accusations.

But a presidential candidate can run for office with a spouse that has been accused and no one asks?

The same spouse settled a harassment lawsuit and that’s not a question for the candidate?

A candidate who’s running as a feminist?

As a protector of women and children?

Hillary championed Brett McGurk for Ambassador to Iraq – despite what it would have done to Iraqi women.

He would have been the US Ambassador to Iraq.  And because of his reputation of being a playboy in Iraq previously (treating his ‘blue balls’), it would have made women interacting with him suspect.  He was branded an adulterer in Iraq, grasp that there is a conservative strain in this religious country

Hillary didn’t give a damn.

If a number of US senators – spearheaded by two female senators – hadn’t met with then-President Barack Obama and given a firm no to Brett, he would not have withdrawn his nomination.

Our ‘feminist’ Hillary didn’t care that Brett as US Ambassador would mean only Iraqi males could interact with him in a society that frowns on adultery and can still carry out so-called ‘honor’ killings.

And speaking of Iraqi women, Hillary also refused to champion them.   From the July 9, 2016 "Iraq snapshot:"

Trashy Hillary Clinton could pimp Iraq as a business opportunity.

But the alleged 'feminist' couldn't and wouldn't do a damn thing for Iraqi women.

This is most obvious in the e-mails WikiLeaks published this week.

Melanne Verveer e-mails Hillary on December 11, 2011:

We attempted to raise the issue of women's participation in the Iraq government, in their economy and more broadly when Biden was just in Baghdad.  Jeff Feltman was trying to get it into the conversations there.

You will recall the comments of the Iraqi who participated in the NGO meeting with you in Doha about how the door has been closed to women in the government.  We have had many discussions with impressive Iraqi women over the last couple years, and to a person they describe their fate as worse now than years ago.  Yet without them it will be even harder for Iraq to move forward.  To that end, we have been working with post on a action plan along the lines of the National Action Plan on women, peace and security, you will launch next week.
I hope you will find a way to raise the "women's issue" in your discussion tom'w.

And what does the 'great feminist' of all time, the woman with the highest cabinet position in the administration respond:

I raised women's issue w Maliki and Zebari.  Can't say either of them seemed interested.  But, we'll keep trying -- as always!

Despite the reality that her vote for the Iraq War destroyed the lives of Iraqi women.

And her State Dept was said to be a hotbox of misconduct. 

Philippe Reins served under Hillary and his harassment was noted in an e-mail exchange with the late  journalist Michael Hastings – a point only a few pointed out.

Patrick Kennedy reported to Hillary and vicious rumors swirled about him.

Over and over again, Hillary has taken a pass.

Yet wants to insist that she’s a champion of girls and women.


And we haven’t even noted her refusal to fire close pal Huma Abedin.

Loyalty’s good.  To a point.

When your pal’s becoming a distraction to your campaign, you cut your losses.  Failure to do so indicates you won’t be able to make hard choices should you become president.

Yet another sex scandal and Hillary can’t shut it down but thinks she can be president.

Huma’s husband (whom she’s still married to at this point) went to prison.

And Hillary wouldn’t cut her loose?

He was a danger to underage women and Hillary wouldn’t cut Huma loose.

She keeps saying she’s a friend to women and children but she keeps providing cover for predators.

THE NEW YORK TIMES has reported one more example of how you can be a predator and have Hillary’s full support.

It’s time for people to stop pretending that she’s an example of anything other than a worn out door mat.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Friday, January 26, 2018.  Turkey's ready to ramp up war with Iraq, no one's clear what Secretary of State Rex Tiller said to them or promised to them, Iraqi elections remain a muddle of confusion, and much more.

Good points raised on Twitter.  Let's start with Jimmy Dore who I agree with:

By "Cranks" do u mean the same people that exposed the Iraq WMD's lie like NSA Whistleblower William Binney & or Veterans Intelligence Professionals For Peace, while all your friends pushed for Iraq war on MSNBC? Whatever happened to

Again, I agree with him.  But it's not something I think about a great deal because MSNBC's a joke to me.  But reading the Tweet, it's not just that Donahue was run off from MSNBC (ahead of the start of the Iraq War), it's that in all the time since, they've only once given a show to someone who publicly questioned the war before it started: Alec Baldwin.

Danny Glover, Janeane Garofalo, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Laura Flanders, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Gillian Anderson, Jessica Lange, Samuel L. Jackson, Rosario Dawson, Harry Belafonte, Steve Earle, Diahann Carroll, Cynthia McKinney, Tom Morello, Margaret Kimberley, Glen Ford, Bruce A. Dixon, Dennis Kucinich, . . .

Has a single prominent politician or pundit ever apologized for advocating for an Iraq War that was waged on false WMD pretenses and that killed hundreds of thousands of people? Or did most of them just smile at the camera and get re-hired for their jobs?

I think it's just John Edwards who penned a column for THE WASHINGTON POST when he was preparing for his run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Hillary Clinton certainly didn't talk about false pretenses or the death of people.  She said it was a mistake, her vote was a mistake.  And then it evolved into, it was a mistake to trust Bully Boy Bush to do the war right.

But that's craven Hillary for you.

In terms of pundits, MOTHER JONES has certainly found employment for a lot of Iraq War supporters including Kevin Drum but then the promotion of  Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery meant the death of that magazine.

I have not changed my opinion of . He killed one million people in Iraq. I can’t forget about that.

Those are sentiments that would never be expressed by MOTHER JONES today.  They're so watered down they need adult diapers.

This week BLACK AGENDA RADIO shared a speech by Margaret Kimberley discussing the permanent war and the lack of resistance to war from the so-called 'Resistance.'

Let's dive into Iraq.

Yesterday afternoon REUTERS published an embarrassing article.  It opens:

Iraqi authorities on Thursday took into custody a former trade minister convicted in absentia for corruption cases, following his extradition from Lebanon, Iraq’s corruption watchdog said in a statement. 

Yes, that is the story we covered yesterday morning -- before REUTERS.

We didn't have to wait for 'authorities' to issue 'a statement.'

Don't know when that became necessary to report on something.

They also fail to note that this ex-Minister of Trade September apprehension is unusual in that he's only released to Iraq in time for Hayder al-Abadi to use it as election propaganda.

They re-wrote a government release.

Somehow that passed for reporting.

They didn't even get his history correct.

At least they can say they covered it.  That's more than any other western outlet has done.

Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) does a better job covering the story.

In terms of analyzing the planned elections in May (they're supposed to take place in May), NIQASH remains one of the few outlets offering analysis.  Mustafa Habib notes today:

The Abbas Brigades are one of the militias that made an official announcement saying they would not be competing in the upcoming Iraqi general elections, still slated for May 12. The brigade’s main founder, the highest Shiite Muslim cleric in the country, Ali al-Sistani, refuses to participate in politics.
However there are still more than 20 different militias, that started off as volunteer forces to fight the Islamic State, or IS, group, but which are now an official part of the Iraqi security forces, who have decided to compete in the elections, in one form or another.
It is fair to say that these elections will be the most important in Iraq since 2003 and will determine the country’s path in this new era, after the security crisis caused by the Islamic State group.
Iraqi law bans military groups from participating in elections, saying that political parties should not take a military or semi-military form and should not be affiliated with any armed forces. The leaders of formerly-volunteer militias have been allowed to form political entities because they said that their fighters were now at the disposal of the Iraqi government. In reality though, the fighters are still taking orders from their leaders. There are also still dozens of offices that represent the militias in every Iraqi city and town and they appear to act independently – one Iraqi MP, Hakim al-Zamili, head of the parliamentary defence and security committee in parliament, has said the offices should be closed.
The militias are now a legitimate part of Iraq’s security forces, Abbas al-Bayati, a Turkmen MP and member of the parliamentary committee on foreign relations, who is close to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, told NIQASH. “It is the third force after the army and the police,” he said. “We don’t accept attacks on this force. But we do acknowledge that it needs to be organized, and to be distanced from political activities, according to Iraqi law.”

A law was passed that was supposed to deal with the future and the place of the militias in Iraq but important details around the implementation of the law were not spelled out. Some other politicians have demanded that the law be amended to deal with these gaps.

News out of Iraq today includes by the Turkish government pounding war drums.

Turkish president vows to expand Ankara's operation in Syrian Kurdish enclave eastward, toward the frontier with Iraq.

Turkey's Erdogan vows to fight Kurdish forces as far as Iraq

Turkish operations on Syrian border to extend as far as Iraq, Erdogan says

As BBC NEWS notes:

Turkey is prepared to take its fight against Kurdish forces in northern Syria as far east as Iraq, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said.
Speaking in Ankara, Mr Erdogan reiterated that his forces will move against Kurdish-controlled Manbij, which risks confrontation with the US.
US troops are based in the city, which was taken from the Islamic State group (IS) by Kurdish-led forces in 2016.

More danger for US troops who shouldn't even be in Iraq today.  Will the government ever end the Iraq War?

That question wasn't raised at yesterday's State Dept policy briefing spokesperson Heather Nauert handled but Turkey's actions did come up.

QUESTION: Can I have a quick one on Turkey about yesterday’s phone call between President Trump and Erdogan?
MS NAUERT: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: It seems that the Turks are telling – claiming there is a mischaracterization of the content of the call in the White House readout. What do you make of this claim from Turkey?
MS NAUERT: I think our – the call readout that was provided by the White House was very specific, it was very detailed, and it was firm. And I think it expressed both the President and the Secretary’s extreme concern about the situation in northwestern Syria, in the Afrin area. So I think they were clear about that. I think the President and the Secretary – as the Secretary has in recent calls with the foreign minister of Turkey – been very clear that we want a de-escalation of tensions. This is a part of Syria that had been relatively stable. Again, it’s Syria, but it had been relatively stable. And now we’re seeing something altogether different happen. We recognize and respect Turkey’s legitimate security concerns, their concerns about the PKK. Turkey is a NATO partner and ally, so we understand and respect that, but I want to make something clear, that we don’t have a U.S. presence in Afrin. Our U.S. presence is elsewhere. It’s more in the eastern part of the country, where we’ve been fighting – where we have been fighting ISIS. So we’re not a part of that. We work with the Syrian Democratic Forces in the eastern part of that country to fight ISIS. We continue to do that, so – and we encourage the Turks and everybody else to put the focus on ISIS and not other groups.
QUESTION: Heather, the Turkish foreign minister and other Turkish officials said publicly that Tillerson proposed this idea for a 30-kilometer buffer zone. Tillerson said, “I didn’t propose anything.” The Turks have come back and said no, really, you did. Do you have any clarity on – I mean, did they discuss it but it wasn’t a formal proposal, or – can you, like, parse that for us?
MS NAUERT: Yeah, and we put out some comments on this yesterday, and I want to talk a little bit about some of what the Secretary said. And he talked to I believe one of the pool reporters today when he landed in Davos. He said, “We discussed a number of possible options, but we didn’t propose anything.” So back to the readout for a second that was provided, we stand by the readout. We stand by the President’s assertion of cautioning Turkey about the escalation of tensions in the Afrin area, and then the Secretary I think has also been clear by saying, look, we discussed a range of options with the Turks.
QUESTION: Was the 30-mile or kilometer buffer zone one of them?
MS NAUERT: I don’t have that level of specificity that I can provide to you, but I think there was no formal proposal of anything. I think the Secretary was talking with Turkey – NATO ally – about hey, what do you all need, just as though he would talk to the Kurds, because he was speaking with Barzani today. So he’s talking with both sides about what they would all need.
QUESTION: The Turks are talking – you were saying that you’re not involved in Afrin, but they’re talking about moving on to Manbij, which – where there is a U.S. military base. Has the Secretary kind of drawn any red lines about where they can go?
MS NAUERT: We have been clear with the Turks.
QUESTION: Have we relocated any U.S. personnel out of Manbij to make sure they don’t get bombed by the Turks?
MS NAUERT: State Department personnel?

MS NAUERT: I – yeah, I can’t comment on any DOD personnel because I just wouldn’t have that level of knowledge, but I’m not aware of any State Department personnel who’ve been moved.

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley and PACIFICA EVENING NEWS -- updated: