Friday, June 24, 2016

Iraq and silence

The (still ongoing) 'liberation' of Falluja has created thousands of more refugees in Iraq.

We badly need resources to expand number of camps for civilians fleeing Iraq's

Emma Graham-Harrison (GUARDIAN) notes, "The United Nations has warned that fighting against Islamic State in Iraq could force up to 2.3 million people from their homes this year, as the battle for Falluja grinds on days after Baghdad officially declared victory."

Changing topics . . .

  1. Where was a to oppose the Iraq War? To overturn Citizens United? To halt mass deportations? Stop drone bombings?

The Green Party could be a winner in the 2016 elections.  The right presidential candidate could help voter turnout and help with offices lower on the ticket.

I've endorsed Jill Stein.

That's what several e-mails say.

That's news to me.

My public comments have been that I wasn't going to vote for her after the disaster of 2012 (her campaign).

That's still my basic feeling.

I've noted that if she addresses Iraq, we'll try to note her.

She's not addressing it often enough to win my vote thus far.

I also will have no need to vote for her if she chooses the same running mate from 2012.

2012 was a losing ticket.

She needs to demonstrate that she's learned from 2012 to get my vote.

That means addressing Iraq.

That also means showing that she's not going to be the stooge she was in 2012.

In September of 2012, Tim Arango (NEW YORK TIMES) broke the news that Barack had sent a unit of US troops back into Iraq.  This was established via a sourced quote by the top US commander in Iraq at that time (he's now at West Point).  Mitt Romney and the Republicans were slamming Barack for ending the war in Iraq (that has never ended) and couldn't let go of their talking points.

When they should have.

Let's stop for a moment.  I don't want people working the public e-mail account to get stuck with a ton of e-mails "That was never reported!," etc.

From November 7, 2012's "Let the fun begin (Ava and C.I.):"

Lies about Iraq drove the 2008 election and they drove the 2012 election as well.

The country was transformed to the elephant in the room for 2012 that no one could be honest about.  President Barack Obama  lied that he'd 'ended' the Iraq War, he misled people into believing that all US troops had left Iraq, and he failed to inform Americans that he was negotiating to send even more US troops into Iraq.

While the uninspiring victory speech last night blended The Hollies "He's Not Heavy, He's My Brother" ("The road is long") with Jerry McGuire ("You've made me a better president"), it also made clear that the administration was on fumes even before the second term officially begins in January.

The administration is as empty as the media.  If you doubt that, September 26th, the New York Times' Tim Arango reported:

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.

September 26th it was in print.

Days later, October 3rd, Barack 'debated' Mitt RomneyAgain October 16thAgain October 22nd.

Not once did the moderators ever raise the issue.

If Barack's sitting before them and he's flat out lying to the American people, it's their job to ask.  They didn't do their job.  Nor did social menace Candy Crowley who was apparently dreaming of an all-you-can-eat buffet when Barack was babbling away before her about how he wouldn't allow more "troops in Iraq that would tie us down."  But that's exactly what he's currently negotiating.

Maybe Candy Crowley missed the New York Times article?  Maybe she spends all her time pleasuring herself to her version of porn: Cooking With Paula Deen Magazine?

That is possible.

But she was only one of the three moderators.  Bob Schieffer and Jim Lehrer also moderated.  Of course, they didn't foolishly self-present as a fact checker in the midst of the debate  nor did they hit the publicity circuit before the debate to talk about how they were going to show how it was done.

Poor Crowley, a heavy weight strutting into a non-competition will always look woefully misdressed.

Barack lied and Americans will face that or not.

You can find Ava and my criticism of Jill Stein in that.

The Republicans in Congress were furious with Romney (and Ava and I note that as well) for refusing to raise that issue in the campaign.

His campaign's position is that they had already attacked him for 'withdrawing' troops and it was a winning argument with the base.

Senate Republicans argued that this would chip into Barack's support -- publicizing his sending troops back in.

Especially since Barack said in the debates that he'd ended the war.

So that's why Romney didn't bring it up.

Want to explain why Jill didn't?

I don't know why.

I do know she criticized Barack lightly up until he lost a debate.

Then she dropped any and all criticism of him.

So that was a failed campaign.

She needs to demonstrate she's learned from it to get my vote.

And/or she needs to talk Iraq.

If she'd do major things on Iraq, I wouldn't just highlight her here, I'd endorse her here.

Even if she chose the same weak running mate.

Because Iraq is a very important issue.

The illegal war is now 13 years old.

It has consumed vast resources.

It has resulted in thousands of Americans being killed (many more injured) and well over a million Iraqis being killed (many more injured).

It is foreign policy, it is peace, it is human rights, it is War Crimes and the Iraq War is even more than that.

If she'd treat it as a serious topic, she could have my vote.

Topics not covered here.

Every day, there are a multitude of Iraq related topics that do not get covered here.  I'm hoping to note at least one Congressional hearing I attended this week in the next snapshot.

But there are also topics we're not going to touch.

A fake ass that we've called out repeatedly has been suspended by an aid agency as they conduct an investigation into whether or not he's aided ISIS.

I don't like the man, haven't since he lied in a hearing overseas (about the number of Jews in Baghdad -- he said in his testimony that it was zero, that was a lie) so we're going back to the mid 00s.

There is no news on him other than what I've put above in one sentence.

He's under investigation, he's not been charged with anything.

He may well be innocent.

Including him in a snapshot at this time for being under investigation would seem to me to be just cruel on my part and I'd only be doing so because I don't like him.  If he's charged with anything (he maintains he's innocent of any wrong doing), then we will note it.

The European Union.

If they're talking about Iraq, we note them.

The UK & the European Union?

 Liked 4,097 times
Brits continue their stupid spiral downward. Iraq War collaborator, privatized crappy trains, adopts US system of student debt, now Brexit.

What's sadder?

That Moore Tweeted that?

Or that 4,097 people (or 'people') liked it?

Michael Moore is an American citizen -- as am I.

In my view, it's not productive for me to insult a whole country of people.  I'll call out a government, no question.

But to insult the British and call them "stupid"?

Other than letting Moore feel good about himself, I don't see who that helps.

And Moore needs to feel good about himself -- clearly all the modern technology could still not make him a thin man and has only created saggy skin all over.

But maybe a daily affirmation recited before the mirror would be more helpful than his insulting an entire country of people?

Here's the other thing, what is it our business?

As Americans, what is it our business?

Is the United States in the European Union?

No, it's not.

So maybe we don't need to be pushy, loud mouth Americans -- our unfortunate stereotype -- on Twitter by presuming to comment on every event around the world?

Believe it or not, the world can -- and will -- go on without Americans standing in judgment on every national step a foreign country decides to take.

If someone's expertise of commentary is foreign relations or international relations, they might want to weigh in on the EU action -- from any country.

But Moore's not really a global expert.

It appears he hadn't fed his outrage quota for the day and was madly searching the internet for some topic -- any topic -- to spew on.

While it won't let him drop any pounds, hurling rage is healthier (for him) than hurling up food.  So good for Moore there; however, to the world spewed upon, it's not a pleasant experience.

The following community sites updated:

  • The e-mail address for this site is