Thursday, October 27, 2016

What she learned

Who's getting rich of Russia?

Hillary and Bill Clinton.

And as this editorial points out, The Clinton Foundation needs to be closed.

When Bill Clinton announced in August that the Clinton Foundation will no longer accept foreign or corporate donations if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, it was at least the third set of ethics rules that the post-presidential, pre-presidential charity has adopted to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest.
At the time Mrs. Clinton was nominated to be secretary of state, the foundation was required to seek the approval of the State Department before accepting donations from foreign governments. When she launched her presidential campaign, the foundation was limited in what it could accept from foreign governments, but donations from individuals and corporations were accepted.

The ethics policy announced by the former president in August would have barred the contributions of 53 percent of the donors who gave $1 million or more to the Clinton Foundation, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. That list includes the government of Saudi Arabia, ExxonMobil and Barclay’s, a British bank.

Their little slush fund needs to be closed and closed now.

It's as if all Watergate taught Hillary was how to be more secretive.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, October 26, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq mission remains undefined, more War Hawks and War Criminals back Hillary Clinton, and much more.

The advance on Mosul slowly moves along . . .

Islamic State holds up Iraqi army south of Mosul

Not so liberating: Iraqi village freed from Islamic State, but then things get complicated


As that inches along, Turkey continues to maintain it can fight in Iraq.

For those late to this story, Turkey has troops in Iraq.

The Iraqi government has repeatedly ordered them to remove those troops.

The Iraqi government has stated they do not want the troops there and they do not want the troops involved in the Mosul operation.

The Turkish government refuses to respect Iraq's requests or Iraq's national sovereignty.

At least the United States understands the concept of national sovereignty.

The issue came up Monday at the State Dept press briefing moderated by lovely lashes John Kirby (desperately attempting to become an MSNBC star -- no joke, he's angling for a post-administration gig),

QUESTION: The rise in tensions between Turkey and Iraq. After --

MR KIRBY: Between Turkey and?



QUESTION: After Secretary Carter’s visit both Iraq and Syria, what’s the status of the – with tensions? Do you see a potential ultimate agreement?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’d let – I think I’d let each side speak for themselves in terms of where they see the tensions. What’s been important is that there has been dialogue and we’ve said all along, many months ago when tensions over a Turkish military footprint came up, that we wanted to see Turkey and Iraq talk through this and work through this bilaterally.

QUESTION: But did Secretary Carter ease any rise in tensions between them in this visit in particular?

MR KIRBY: You’d have to talk to Secretary Carter and his staff. I don’t do a good job speaking for the Defense Department anymore, so you’d have to talk to them about that.

Let each side speak for themselves?

What about national sovereignty, John Kirby?

You know, if he'd spend less time pumping Mika for tips on making it at MSNBC and more time doing his job he might make it to adequate.

Tuesday, the issue was raised again.  Still Kirby failed to stand up for sovereignty.


MR KIRBY: Where?


MR KIRBY: Okay, sure.


MR KIRBY: Said is being a gentleman.

QUESTION: I appreciate that. Thank you. So the Turkish foreign minister said today that they could launch a ground operation in Iraq. You’ve talked a lot about how Turkey is a key NATO ally. How does the U.S. feel about that?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I’m a little reticent to talk about military operations here, but in this case what I’ll – what I would say is that, as we have made clear from the beginning of this fight against [the Islamic State], that all military activity should be coordinated as part of the larger Iraqi effort to expel [the Islamic State] from their cities, their towns, their communities. And any nation’s participation in that effort we want to be done by, through, and with the Iraqi Government’s express permission and coordination.

QUESTION: So Turkey’s involvement without their express permission and coordination would complicate that effort?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to, again, speculate for what Turkey will or won’t do. But as I’ve again said many times, that any – we would – we believe that any effort outside, done in an uncoordinated fashion, is ultimately counterproductive to the overarching goal of defeating and degrading [the Islamic State] inside Iraq. We want all military activities to be coordinated and with the permission and approval of the Iraqi Government.

Too bad there's not a presidential election going on.

If there was, the press could pin the candidates down as to where they stand on national sovereignty.

Oh, wait, there is a presidential election going on.

Where's the press.

Doing the work the press won't do is constitutional attorney Bruce Fein who notes at HUFFINGTON POST:

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy of “Don’t do stupid s[tuff]” has been turned on its head in Iraq. The stupefying stupidity of our continuing military involvement featuring more than 5,000 American soldiers ranks with our carnival of imbecilities during the Vietnam War.
We have no definition of victory.

We are defending a Shiite government dominated by Iran, at war with Israel, hostile towards Iraqi Kurds, opposed by a NATO ally (Turkey), and brimming with corruption.
[. . .]
The United States stupidly invaded Iraq in March 2003 for the juvenile thrill of flexing our military muscles to intimidate the world. But we also made Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, stronger by destroying its chief nemesis, Saddam Hussein. Thirteen years after our invasion, we stupidly remain in Iraq without any idea of why we are there beyond killing for the sake of killing.
That is the very definition of stupid stuff that President Obama professedly derides.  

Let's stay with stupid stuff for a moment.

I have this visual image of 30,000 Iraqi troops tiptoeing through the desert in order to mount the 'sneak' attack on Mosul that Trump wants!

Mehdi Hasan.

What a fool.

He deliberately distorts what Trump says.

I don't agree with Trump on this point (or on any that come to mind -- oh, I agree that Hillary's crooked -- that I agree with).  But his point was that for months they've been saying that the assault on Mosul would start and that this allowed leaders of the Islamic State to leave.

You can agree with his point of view that it should have been a surprise or not.

Again, I don't.

But Mehdi's deliberately distorting Donald.

And don't applaud that.

Even if you're a Hillary Clinton supporter, don't applaud that.

Mehdi did that for Bully Boy Bush throughout BBB's occupancy of the White House.

He would go on THE DIANE REHM SHOW and ridicule opponents to the Iraq War.

So don't think Mehdi lying about someone is a good thing.

He's a suck up who chooses his targets based upon whom the establishment wants to silence.

Staying with the presidential race -- Donald Trump is the Republican Party's nominee for president -- let's zoom in on the Democratic Party's nominee Hillary Clinton:

Ben Norton (SALON) reports that Colin THE BLOT Powell has announced he will be voting for War Hawk Hillary and Powell is one of many Iraq War criminals rushing to support Hillary:

The former senior Bush administration official joins a long list of right-wing leaders who are support Hillary Clinton.
Former president George H.W. Bush, father of the leader under whom Powell served, has also said he is going to vote for Clinton.
Likewise, former vice president Dick Cheney heaped praise on Clinton in a 2011 Fox News interview. He said the then-secretary of state was “one of the more competent members of the current administration,” adding that “it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president.”
Cheney stopped short of endorsing Clinton and appears to have said little about her in this election. Salon sent Cheney multiple requests for comment but did not receive a reply.
Clinton also had a warm relationship with Robert Gates, a former secretary of defense in George W. Bush’s administration and later for Obama’s. Gates admiringly called Clinton a “tough lady” who shared his hawkish politics and “was someone he could do business with,” the Times reported.
Neoconservative war hawks like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and James Kirchick have similarly endorsed Clinton, applauding her foreign policy views.

As Bully Boy Bush might say, that's her base.

Meanwhile Jill Stein is running for president on the Green Party ticket and Gary Johnson is running for president on the Libertarian Party ticket.

If receives just 5% nationally it unlocks millions in campaign funds and ballot access.

Presidential candidate Jill Stein notes:

Why has debt ballooned? Reckless wars for oil. Tax cuts for the rich. Economic meltdown. Caused by both Dems + GOP.

How would you feel if another country occupied US and bombed your family? We need to stop creating enemies.

Stein is running on a peace platform, yes, but also a common sense one.

Meanwhile, the US Defense Dept announced this morning:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, bomber, fighter, remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted eight strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Haditha, one strike destroyed an ISIL trench system.

-- Near Kisik, one strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle.

-- Near Mosul, three strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and a mortar system and destroyed seven vehicles, seven tunnels, seven mortar systems, four fighting positions, four supply caches, three staging areas, three ISIL-held buildings, a communications facility and a vehicle bomb.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, three strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and destroyed six vehicles, two buildings, a weapons system and a front-end loader.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley --  updated:


  • iraq

    Wednesday, October 26, 2016

    How do they live with themselves?

    Reading this by Patrick Martin (WSWS):

    One group of prominent economists and sociologists has issued an open letter proclaiming Hillary Clinton not merely the lesser evil, but a positive good. The letter was signed by 50 leading academics, including some who have done important work in illuminating the growth of social and class inequality in America, such as Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and William Julius Wilson of Harvard.
    The letter cites the rampant growth of economic inequality in America, including the growth of the share of national income going to the top 1 percent from 10 percent of the total in 1981 to 22 percent in 2015. The vast majority of all income increases since the mid-1970s have gone to the super-rich. This 40-year period is divided evenly between Republican and Democratic administrations, both of which have favored the wealthy at the expense of working people.
    Nonetheless, the 50 academics argue that the policies of Clinton, “backed by the most progressive Democratic Party platform in four decades, will both promote growth and reduce income inequality.”
    The letter then lists a series of proposals, ranging from a $15-an-hour minimum wage to universal pre-school, relief from college-student debt and expanded spending on infrastructure, financed by higher taxes on the wealthy including a surtax on millionaires. It declares that Clinton has worked her “entire adult life” for such measures.
    There are some long-time Democratic Party hacks among the signers, including two former members of Bill Clinton’s cabinet, Robert Reich and Laura D’Andrea Tyson. But there are others who should know better, but have allowed themselves to be politically stampeded by fear of Trump.
    In the Democratic primaries, many of the signatories supported Bernie Sanders and his criticisms of Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. Now that these ties have been confirmed a thousand times over with the release by WikiLeaks of campaign communications and Clinton speeches to corporate audiences, the letter’s signers choose to look the other way.
    But what is most significant about the letter is the fact that it contains not a word about foreign policy, the growing war danger, or the commitment of an incoming Clinton administration to policies of military confrontation with Russia and China, both nuclear-armed powers. Even if one believed, against all the evidence, that Clinton actually intended to enact a modest program of social reform, the financial demands of an expanded military intervention in the Middle East, let alone a major war with Russia or China, would mean an immediate end to such projects.

    . . . I was left to wonder when does the whoring stop?

    How long are these liars going to prop up Hillary.

    And how stupid do they think we are?

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for war -- the point Patrick Martin's making -- and these 'elites' don't give a damn.

    They'll kill all the Muslims in the world with the hope that they can pressure Hillary on $15 an hour minimum wage but settle if she goes to $9.50.

    And the rest of the world clearly does not matter.

    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

    Tuesday, October 25, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, a sell out passes away with his image in tatters . . .

    Everybody run, the Homecoming Queen's got a gun
    Everybody run, the Homecoming Queen has got a gun
    Stop it, Debbie, you're making a mess
    Powder burns all over your dress
    An hour later, the cops had arrived
    By then the entire glee club had died -- no big loss
    -- "The Homecoming Queen's Got A Gun," written by Julie Brown, Charlie Coffey, Ray Colcord, Terrence E. McNally, first appears on Julie's GODDESS IN PROGRESS album

     No big loss.

    The political equivalent of the glee club has died.

    No big loss.

    Tom Hayden was wrongly given full credit for The Port Huron Statement.  Like his credit, the importance of that statement is greatly inflated.

    Then he plotted violence in Chicago.

    He did plot it.

    Let's quit kidding.

    I knew him -- and was grossed out by him -- he plotted it.

    That's not to say violence wouldn't have broken out anyway but months ahead of the Democratc Party's 1968 convention in Chicago, Tom was planning violence.

    Tom didn't take part in it -- from account of friends -- he could be vague on it when he spoke.

    He most likely didn't take part because he was always keeping an eye on how to social climb next.

    After Chicago, he tried to establish a presence on the west coast.

    His rank sexism ensured that he couldn't.

    So he hid out underground, under an assumed name.

    He was not hiding from the FBI, to be clear.

    He saw the actress Jane Fonda rising in political circles and knew he'd found a ticket to ride.

    She was new to causes and deeply embarrassed over a number of mistakes -- minor mistakes.

    When you make a mistake, admit it and move on.

    Better, laugh and move on.

    But Jane was seen as humorless and she was unable to move on from her mistake.

    She saw Tom as her political educator and protector.

    Everyone else saw him for the social climber he was -- Peter Fonda was on to Tom from the start.

    If she hadn't gotten pregnant, the relationship might have ended as did all of her other early 70s relationships.

    Instead, she ended up married to a liar and cheat.

    (Is that why she's supporting Hillary?)

    Elaine's written before about how Tom came on to her.

    I've never written about it, but, yes, he tried with me too.

    I harshly rejected him.

    (A) He was ugly.  On the outside and the inside.

    (B) I considered Jane a friend -- a foolish one to be married to him, but a friend never the less.

    The more money Jane raked in -- she was one of the biggest film stars from the mid seventies to the early 80s -- the more open he was about cheating.

    And by "open," I don't mean Jane knew.

    I mean that he risked her knowing.

    Elaine was in the same room with Jane when Tom came on to her.

    That was his m.o.

    By the time she was raking in millions on her fitness empire (books, videotapes, studios, lps, etc), he really seemed to see it as a blood sport -- hitting on women while Jane was present elsewhere in the room.

    Again, he was always deeply sexist.

    He never felt she was that talented.

    When she rose from her career ashes (her acting career was on the skids when the met), he constantly told her that she looked old, her career would fade in a few years because she was old, etc.

    He worked daily to undermine her esteem.

    And, remember, she was recovering from bulimia -- which he knew.

    As he'd compare her breasts (then natural, she hadn't had them enhanced yet) to other women, younger actresses, he knew what he was doing.

    He was a vile and disgusting piece of trash.

    She probably wouldn't have made the racist ROLLOVER without Tom at her side.  Tom was a Zionist -- he'd come out on that in the '00s with a so-called apology -- and loathed Arabs. 

    He especially loathed Sunnis.  In 2007, he'd go on Laura Flanders' radio show and propose a 'peace' method for the Iraq War -- after he was off the phone, Laura snorted on air and said something to the effect of, "What?  He wants us to be pen pals with ___" -- she missed the with.  Whatever he wanted, he was talking Moqtada al-Sadr.  He talked only Moqtada.  Reason being he loathes Sunnis.  (Cleric and movement leader Moqtada is a Shi'ite.)

    So Tom's cheating constantly.

    Jane, by the end, knows and the closest she comes to admitting it is a lunch with a mutual friend who, immediately after the lunch, called me (and probably everyone we both know) to say, "She knows he's cheating!"  (At the lunch, Jane was discussing a possible film project she'd make with the friend. It was about two women who became friends even though the husband of one was sleeping with the other.)

    Tom needed Jane's money, Jane thought she needed Tom -- that was the basis of the marriage.

    With her pouring millions into his campaigns, he finally made it into the state house -- no real accomplishment with all the money spent -- or the star power spent -- Jane herself would block walk to drum up votes for Tom.

    Tom was sleeping with VR (of the Dukakis campaign) but that's not what ended the marriage.

    What ended the marriage was Tom knew his current station was insulting with all the money spent and he wanted to be president (and Jane thought he could be).

    He took out a poll to find out whether or not Jane -- marriage to her -- was hindering his political goals.

    When the results said "yes," he informed her of his affair with VR and that he was leaving her for VR.

    (I think VR is known but in case she's not, I'm just using her initials.)

    It was not a pretty divorce.

    Due to the delicate feelings of her limitedly talented son Troy, Jane censors herself in public about Tom.  But she has a hilarious line about that property settlement that she'll hopefully share publicly because it's true and it's funny.

    Tom took the millions he extorted from Jane in the property settlement and was convinced he'd have a big political career.

    He did not.

    She had offered him all the sizzle and star power his campaigns ever had.

    Without her, he had no political future.

    He tried to catch a ride on the Iraq War.

    And we were told it was sincere.

    (I suspended disbelief, Elaine never did.)

    He wasn't sincere.

    Which is why, throughout the two terms of Barack's presidency, Tom never tried to organize a demonstration, never spoke out strongly against the war, never did a damn thing.  Yes, in the summer of 2014, Tom did a column -- woop-di-damn-do -- about how this could be mission creep -- Barack sending troops into Iraq.

    But that's all he did.

    Contrast that with his supposed concerns and claims during the days when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House.

    All of Tom's efforts to end the Iraq War ended with Barack Obama.

    That's Isaiah's "Tom Hayden Democrats."

    I bumped into him twice after the eternal sell out had again sold out.

    The first time I was on my cell phone and waived him away.

    The second time, was fumbling for something and didn't realize he'd approached until too late.  I laughed at him and at Barack's diss of "Tom Hayden Democrats."  I told him the Iraq War continued and that he (Tom) continued to be a sell out.

    That was pretty much it.

    His life should haunt a number of other people.

    They should realize that they could die at any moment like he did.

    And that their reputation could also be in tatters.

    See, even the whores (and Tom has a number of men who will lie for him) who try to pimp him as some great anti-war activist will be left with the reality that anyone reading a book years from now will be able to see that Tom did nothing to end the Iraq war from 2009 to 2016.

    And yet, they'll be able to see, the Iraq War still continued.

    He'll be exposed as the hypocrite and whore he was just by the timeline.

    And so will others.

    They better wake up to the fact real damn quick.

    Tom was a Zionist and a sexist.

    His passing is no great loss.

    He didn't give a damn for the Sunnis of Iraq anymore than he gave a damn about Jane when he used insults to intentionally hurt her.

    Tom lived long enough to disgrace his name and legacy -- but not long enough to vote for the candidate he'd endorsed: War Hawk Hillary Clinton.

    Jimmy Dore Retweeted Jordan
    HRC fully supported Iraq War, but now says was "Mistake". So much of one, that she is literally seeking out advice from Iraq War Architects.
    Jimmy Dore added,


    Hillary learned from her "mistake"?


    She has no solution for Iraq.

    How can you work towards a goal if you haven't defined one?

    Salah Nasrawi (ALJAZEERA) reports:

    But a major criticism remains that the rush to begin the offensive in Mosul under pressure from the Obama administration may have put the US presidential election calculus above long-term Iraqi national interests. A new Iraq strategy by the next American president may take an entirely different direction which could squander all the successes in the war against ISIL.
    Politically, Baghdad has so far failed to put together a direly needed concrete national reconciliation and rebuilding plan that establishes a more durable framework to stabilise the country in a post-ISIL era. Such a strategy is fundamental in breaking the so-called incubators, or the society-based support ISIL receives in Sunni areas and propelling its strategic defeat.

    Before the Islamic State, there was al Qaeda in Mesopotomia (a direct cause of the Iraq War).

    After the Islamic State, there will be something else.

    Until the Baghdad-based government is forced to address its practice of persecution and exclusion, this will continue.

    You cannot stigmatize and target a group of people without a backlash emerging -- a backlash or a defense.

    If this is not addressed, US forces will be in Iraq for centuries -- over and over 'liberating' cities.

    Hillary Clinton as Sisyphus?

    It appears very likely.

    This morning, the US Defense Dept announced:

    Strikes in Iraq
    Attack, bomber, fighter, remotely piloted and rotary wing aircraft and rocket artillery conducted eight strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Rutbah, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed 11 vehicles.
    -- Near Mosul, five strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and two rocket positions; destroyed 22 fighting positions, eight vehicles, eight tunnels, seven mortar systems, six rocket rails, three heavy machine guns, three rocket systems, two light machine guns, two command and control nodes, a vehicle bomb, a communications tower, an ISIL-held building and a mortar cache; and damaged a mortar system.
    -- Near Sinjar, a strike engaged four staging areas.
    -- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two vehicles and a weapons cache.
    Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.


    Friday, October 21, 2016

    Leave Julian Assange alone

    Does Hillary Clinton and her cronies want to tick off most of America?

    Have you seen this:

    PHOTO: Heavily armed 'police' appear outside Ecuadorian Embassy in London where Julian Assange has political asylum (photo, Tuesday morning)

    Leave the man alone.

    He's not hurting anyone in that embassy.

    If you ask me, this is about the Barack e-mails.

    Barack's all upset that his fake image might be torn down.

    But he also wants to help elect Hillary so there's that too; however, I would argue it's mainly about him wanting to protect himself.

    Julian Assange is not the problem here.

    I love how the one who exposes the lie becomes the focus and not the lies exposed.

    Hillary has a lot of fake asses in the press who fake-and-shake for her.

    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

    Friday, October 21, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, another US service member dies in Iraq, the Islamic State mounts a counter-attack, the US media wastes our time on whether Donald Trump will or won't contest election results (when there are no results yet to even contest), the Emmys are rigged, and much more.

    American service member has died from wounds sustained in an IED explosion in northern Iraq, U.S. military says.

    Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Susannah George (AP) report, "U.S. officials said the American service member died Thursday from wounds sustained in a roadside bomb explosion north of Mosul. More than 100 U.S. special operations forces are embedded with Iraqi units in the offensive, and hundreds more are playing a support role in staging bases."

    Aren't we all glad US President Barack Obama swore that US troops would not be in combat in Iraq?

    Guess he forgot to pass that message on to the Islamic State.

    US troops are in combat -- despite Barack's lies.

    Anthony De Rosa Retweeted Amber Smith
    Make no mistake, we are currently at war in Iraq.
    Anthony De Rosa added,

    Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has never bought into those lies and has always insisted publicly that, of course, this is combat.

    Politicians need to stop lying to the American people.

    Let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot:

    Iraq was raised [during the debate].


    [WALLACE:] The Iraqi offensive to take back Mosul has begun. If they are successful in pushing ISIS out of that city and out of all of Iraq, the question then becomes, what happens the day after? And that's something that whichever of you ends up -- whoever of you ends up as president is going to have to confront.
    Will you put U.S. troops into that vacuum to make sure that ISIS doesn't come back or isn't replaced by something even worse? Secretary Clinton, you go first in this segment. You have two minutes.

    CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.

    Will you put US troops into that vacuum?

    She doesn't answer.

    She says no US troops "as an occupying force."

    Hillary, like Bill before her, is known for weasel words.



    She should have been asked to define what she meant.

    If you didn't grasp the cost of spin yesterday morning, maybe you will today.

    They shouldn't be allowed to spin, they should speak honestly -- or be called out.

    . Presidential Town Hall With !!! More info here:
    The Young Turks Presidential Town Hall With Jill Stein!!!
    The Young Turks are hosting a Presidential Town Hall with Jill Stein at YouTube Space LA on Friday October 21st at 3p PT / 6p ET. More info here:


    That YOUNG TURKS event is today.

    Let's stay with the Wednesday debate for a second.

    As many Republicans (at least those on TV) flee the GOP for the Democratic Party in order to support conservative War Hawk Hillary Clinton (who stated in the debate she would have voted to ban late term abortions -- a fact no one is discussing except for Rebecca in 'hillary would ban late term abortions'), pundits gasp or cackle this may be the end of the Republican Party.

    It may be.

    Which would be a reason to vote Green -- unless you're hoping that the GOP's demise means only one party.

    As the Democratic Party becomes closer and closer to the Republican Party, a new party is needed.

    Just as this could be the year the GOP goes down (I don't think so but it could be), this could be the year a new major party emerges: Green.

    Think about all the gas baggery you've seen on so-called 'news' programs on cable about the GOP's demise.

    If you're going to gas bag over that topic, then the topic that goes with it is what replaces it.

    Only that hasn't prompted gas baggery.

    Do we have a media or do we have a Democratic Party megaphone?

    This morning Mika is again blathering on about how Donald Trump, in the debate Wednesday night, refused to say if he will accept the results.

    This a non-issue.

    Let's say Donald understood the question and its meanings and is planning on not accepting the results if he loses.

    So what?

    The Electoral College will name the winner regardless, that person will be sworn in.

    Doesn't really matter what he accepts.

    Hillary grandstanded on the issue as always.

    But she was wrong, Al Gore did not accept the results.

    That's why he filed challenges.

    Yes, after the Supreme Court ruling -- one month and five days after the election -- Al Gore did concede to Bully Boy Bush.

    But Al did not publicly accept the results until that moment.

    'But the results were in dispute!'

    Yeah, whine to someone who didn't contribute to Al Gore (I did and to the recount fund) and to someone who doesn't refer to Bully Boy Busy as BBB or "White House occupant" -- check the archives, I have never applied the p-word to BBB.  I will say "President Barack Obama," I do not use the p-wod with BBB.

    The results could be disputed again.

    Chris Wallace did not do a great job with his questions.

    The one on Syria is probably only the most notable one.

    I would hope that most of us could agree Donald Trump is not politically astute.

    He looked like he felt he was being cornered (and he may have been) and may have seen the question as if the vote was close he was promising away his right to challenge it (in the manner Al Gore did).

    I have no idea.

    But I do know that it doesn't matter if any candidate accepts the results or not.

    This isn't a live award show where Donald Trump can run up onstage and Kanye -- the electoral college's verdict will be final and that person will be sworn in next January.

    That's how it works.

    And all the gas baggery from the likes of Mika are attempts to stuff junk 'news' down your throats instead of exploring real issues because whether Donald Trump will or won't accept the results is completely meaningless.

    Didn't plan to get into this, but dropping back to Wednesday's debate and "rigged."

    Donald Trump was accused by Hillary Clinton of saying that the Emmys were rigged?

    Did he say it?

    I don't know.

    Here's the Emmy response:

    Rest assured, the are not rigged.

    Kate McKinnon is a one-note comic.  She's not that funny -- as she demonstrated in GHOSTBUSTERS.  Leslie Jones is on the same show -- SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.  Kate, not Leslie, got nominated.  Shouldn't have been that way.  Last February, Ava and I noted:

    People need to earn these nominations.

    Sofia Vergara (MODERN FAMILY)

    Sofia's never won.  She's been nominated many times. Her character Gloria?  She has changed over the course of the series and Sofia has repeatedly altered her performance.

    Leslie Jones (SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE)

    Leslie Jones is a constant laugh getter in SNL skits.  She's not given as much variety in the characters she's allowed to play but she makes every character convincing.

    Zoe Lister-Jones (LIFE IN PIECES)

    Any life in this sub-standard sitcom comes from Zoe Lister-Jones who flings lines in one direction and her body in another while hitting one zany comic high note after another.

    Jenifer Lewis (BLACKISH)

    As Dre's overly devoted mother and Bow's antagonist, Jenifer fills a number of roles in each plot while still managing to deliver one manic laugh after another.

    Chelsea Peretti (BROOKLYN 99)

    Gina clearly does not belong in a squad room but Chelsea's performance is so wonderful, you keep praying no one notices.

    Why was Kate even nominated?  She is a one note actress, a one note comic.

    Audiences do not like her in film.

    Let's look at another piece we did in February on the Emmys, this time not for supporting actress but lead actress in a comedy:

    1) Patricia Heaton

    The two-time Emmy winner has never been nominated for her work on THE MIDDLE.  Seven nominations in her career and not one for her long running comedy hit?  As we noted some time ago, she more than deserves a nomination, she's doing her best work ever.  We will never agree with Patricia's politics but this award is supposed to be for acting and she's more than earned a nomination.

    2) America Ferrera

    Proving UGLY BETTY wasn't a fluke, America's back in SUPERSTORE.  Back and delightful in the sitcom.

    3) Anna Farris

    Playing the lead in MOM is no easy feat.  The show can get very intense and then hilarity can come out of that.  This is not cookie-cutter comedy.  And Farris is outstanding.

    4) Lily Tomlin/Jane Fonda

    Let's be real, it's going to be hard for both women to be nominated.  They both deserve it but The Emmys are so horny for HBO, they seldom note the worthy elsewhere.  Lily was nominated last go round and would have been a worthy winner.  Jane was good in season one but, in season two, she's not coming to play, she's bringing it.  Either actress is a solid nominee.

    5) Tracee Ellis Ross

    How did they manage to rob her of the Emmy last year?

    Who knows, but they did.

    Are the Emmys rigged?

    Leslie Jones didn't get nominated.

    Tracee Ellis Ross didn't win.

    African-American women in comedy?

    They've been around for over sixty years.

    How many African-American women have won Emmys for comedy?


    Jackee Harris won supporting for 227, Isabel Sanford won lead for THE JEFFERSONS.

    And before anyone wonders, both actresses only won one time.

    Who got the Emmy for best lead this year?

    Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

    And they year before?

    Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

    And the year before?

    Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

    And the year before --

    She's received it five years in a row.

    For VEEP.

    Where she doesn't play a character, she goofs her way through a skit or sketch.

    It's not acting.

    But she's White.

    Nell Carter, to name only one African-American woman, never won an Emmy for her sitcom -- despite it airing in a "death of sitcom" period (meaning there were far fewer sitcoms on the air).

    Julia can win five times in a row and, in it's entire history, the Emmys have only handed out one Emmy for a comedy lead actress to an African-American woman (Isabel Sanford) and only one Emmy for a comedy supporting actress to an African-American woman (Jackee Harry)?

    227 lasted five seasons, THE JEFFERSONS lasted 11 seasons and Marla Gibbs (who played Mary on 227 and Florence on THE JEFFERSONS) never won an Emmy.

    But Julia has now won seven for acting (her five for VEEP, one for SEINFELD, one for THE NEW ADVENTURES OF OLD CHRISTINE)?  Five for the same show that has aired five seasons?

    Five in a row.

    Julia is the portrait of White entitlement.  As are the Emmys.

    So don't go insisting that they aren't rigged.  There is systematic racism at the Emmys -- from the nominations to the awards themselves.

    And that's before we get to how they are awarded.

    With the Academy Awards, it goes to whomever gets the most votes.

    The Emmys are awarded by 'judging panels.'

    In other words, the entire body of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences is too stupid to pick a winner so they need 'panels.'

    This helps perpetuate racism as the statistic for winners (and nominees) demonstrate.

    In Iraq, the battle for Mosul continues.  The city was seized by the Islamic State in June of 2014.  Two years and four months later, attempts are finally made to liberate or 'liberate' it.  James Cogan (WSWS) reports:

    Iraqi Army units and troops of the autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), backed by US and allied air power, special forces and “advisors,” continue to push toward the Islamic State (ISIS)-held northern city of Mosul and the estimated 1.5 million civilians trapped within its confines. In the past 24 hours, Kurdish forces claimed to have captured villages and towns to the city’s north and east, while Iraqi Army units advanced from the south.
    The assault is unfolding amid uncritical media coverage, with embedded journalists filing reports that in general laud the success of Kurdish and Iraqi forces in the face of supposed fanatical resistance and suicide attacks by ISIS defenders. Vast columns of black smoke rising over the battle zones are universally attributed to ISIS igniting oil wells and mounds of tyres to obscure their movements from aerial detection and attack.
    No official estimates of Kurdish or Iraqi government casualties have been released, nor figures on ISIS losses. The US military confirmed yesterday that one of its special forces soldiers was killed by a roadside bomb to the north of Mosul.
    Next to nothing is being reported about the devastation and casualties caused by US and allied air strikes on targets within the urban reaches of the city itself. Instead, the media is full of accusations that ISIS is using people as “human shields”—justifying civilian deaths in advance. American, British, Australian, French, Canadian and Jordanian bombers, jet fighters, helicopter gunships, drones and surveillance aircraft are involved in the air assault.
    One indication of the destruction being inflicted was an October 19 report by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the University of Mosul, once one of the best equipped in the Middle East, is in ruin. A source stated: “The university is completely inoperative and air strikes have made it a difficult place to go. Most of the buildings have been brought down, it’s virtually gone.”

    US and allied military commanders project that operations to recapture Mosul will last as long as three months. This suggests that much of the city will be reduced to rubble and the predominantly Sunni Arab civilian population will suffer horrific casualties from the bombing, starvation and disease.

    This go round, unlike with Falluja and Ramadi, ISIS hasn't merely retreated from the city, it's launched a counter-attack -- on Kirkuk.

    Fighting still going on in in what seems to be a pretty significant counterattack

    BBC NEWS reports:

    Islamic State (IS) militants have mounted a ferocious counter-attack in north Iraq, killing at least 19 people in and around the city of Kirkuk.
    They attacked government buildings, killing at least six police officers, and a power station under construction, where 13 employees died, officials say.
    Twelve IS fighters also reportedly died and fighting seems to be continuing.

    As the same thing is done each time, is it really a surprise that this go-round the Islamic State would mount a counter-attack?

    The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley -- updated:

  • iraq