Saturday, March 19, 2016

Iraq snapshot

Saturday, March 19, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, another US service member dies in Iraq, there's still no progress in the never-ending Iraq War, a piece of trash supporter of Hillary Clinton decides to attack the wife of Bernie Sanders, and much more.



In Iraq, another US service member has been killed in the never-ending war.

The Combined Joint Task Force issued the following:



March 19, 2016
Release #20160319-02
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 Operation Inherent Resolve Casualty

 SOUTHWEST ASIA -- The Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve can confirm the death of a Coalition service member in northern Iraq today as a result of enemy action.

 Further information will be released as appropriate.

 It is CJTF-OIR policy to defer casualty identification procedures to the relevant national authorities.





Barbara Starr and Jim Sciutto (CNN) report:


A U.S. Marine was killed in a rocket attack by ISIS on a base at Makhmur in northern Iraq, the Pentagon said Saturday.
Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook confirmed the death in a statement. He said the Marine was "providing force protection fire support at a recently established coalition fire base near Makhmur in northern Iraq."
    Cook added that several other Marines were wounded, though he did not provide details on their conditions.

    Liz Sly and Mustafa Salim (WASHINGTON POST) note:

    A senior Iraqi army officer in Makhmour said two rockets landed about 8:20 a.m. Saturday on the U.S. camp, a small, closely guarded facility where American advisers have been based for several months helping Iraqi army and peshmerga forces battle Islamic State fighters nearby and preparing for an offensive to recapture the key Iraqi city of Mosul.


    Yesterday, at VOGUE, Rebecca Bengal observed:

    It was 13 years ago tomorrow that a U.S.-led coalition launched a series of airstrikes in Iraq, dubbed “Shock and Awe,” which triggered the beginning of the near-decade-long war. The legacy of the Iraq War and its resurgence in the national conversation, especially now in the midst of a particularly charged and vitriolic election year, are among the urgent and resonant questions of Youngblood (Atria), a smart and riveting new novel by Matt Gallagher, set in the fictional town of Ashuriyah. Raised in Reno, Nevada, and now living in Brooklyn, Gallagher is an Iraq veteran—his first book, Kaboom, is a memoir that grew out of the blog he kept during his deployment (and which was subsequently shut down by the U.S. military).




    Unremarked upon in the coverage of the latest US military death in Iraq?  That the death occurred on the 13th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War.


    One of the few Tweets noting today's anniversary:






  • 8 hours ago
    March 19 will forever be etched into the minds of the many millions who's lives have been utterly destroyed by the illegal invasion of
    57 retweets 39 likes



    • Some might expect THE NATION, THE PROGRESSIVE, etc to note the anniversary but when you're celebrating a woman who voted for the Iraq War (Hillary Clinton), it's a little hard to note any reality.



    So much takes place without comment.

    Like Barack Obama's promise that there would be no US "boots on the ground."

    Of course there are.

    Or the President's promise that the US troops would not be in combat when they are.


    The death also comes days after US Secretary of State John Kerry's ridiculous speech about the Islamic State in which he claimed ISIS was on the run.



    The US government has been bombing Iraq with bombs dropped from war planes since August 2014.  The daily bombing continued today with the US Defense Dept announcing:



    Strikes in Iraq
    Rocket artillery, ground attack, bomber and fighter aircraft conducted 25 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

     -- Near Al Baghdadi, four strikes struck two ISIL bed-down locations and two ISIL staging areas.

     -- Near Al Huwayja, a strike destroyed an ISIL anti-air artillery piece.

     -- Near Fallujah, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units.

     -- Near Hit, seven strikes struck an ISIL training camp, two ISIL car bomb factories, an ISIL bomb factory, two ISIL tactical units, destroyed an ISIL tunnel, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL supply cache, and an ISIL car bomb.

     -- Near Kisik, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL bunker and two ISIL assembly areas.

     -- Near Mosul, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL assembly area, an ISIL supply cache, and three ISIL vehicles, and damaged an ISIL-used bridge section and suppressed an ISIL fighting position.

     -- Near Qayyarah, a strike destroyed an ISIL mortar position and an ISIL vehicle.

     -- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and suppressed an ISIL fighting position.
    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.




    All those bombings as well as John Kerry's blowhard claims and yet no progress to brag of.



    The Iraqi government targeting the Sunni civilians, under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, led to the rise of the Islamic State -- a Sunni terrorist organization that got a foothold in Iraq because of this targeting.


    And with the US assisting the Iraqi government today, what has changed?



    Pics now Iraqi Sunni children victims of army airstrikes on their houses in


    11:31 AM - 18 Mar 2016



    That's right:  Nothing has changed.











  •  





    • Meanwhile, in the US, War Hawk Hillary Clinton continues to try to seize the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.





    Hillary insists she's not just another ugly face but someone who's uniquely qualified to run -- or at least ruin -- the world.



    She makes various claims of proximity to power.






    •  1 hour ago
    3/20/03 = million deaths tortured prisoners billion cash missing trillions spent & US oil fields

    5 retweets4 likes
     
     
     



    There she is sitting with War Hawk Bully Boy Bush -- she was his 'work wife.'  Seated next to them is his actual wife Laura Bush.  Unlike Hillary, Laura Bush did not vote for the Iraq War or to send young men and women to their deaths.


    Hillary's chief qualifier?


    She's a War Hawk.




     4 hours ago
    THREE WAR CRIMINALS admire Clinton because she's loves war. No REAL progressive would support her.

    58 retweets56 likes
     
     
     






    • She is disgusting.


    So are many of her supporters.


    Take pure trash US House Rep Luis Gutierrez.  Today, the corrupt member of Congress most infamous for being a near dead ringer for Barney Frank did what?

    Verbally attacked Jane Sanders.

    The wife of Senator Bernie Sanders was in Arizona with activists registering opposition to  Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 'tent cities.'  Arpaio briefly spoke with Sanders who made her opposition known.

    Because Jane Sanders is married to Senator Bernie Sanders and because Senator Sanders is vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Luis Gutierrez rose from the gutter to spew an attack on her.


    Harper Neidig (THE HILL) reports, "Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), an outspoken advocate of immigrant rights and a supporter of Hillary Clinton, slammed Sanders for the meeting, saying she was not forceful enough with Arpaio."


    As a general rule, family members are off limits during the campaign.


    But when you're corrupt and a piece of human filth like Gutieerez -- and when you're supporting someone as vile as Hillary Clinton -- you can't help but go to the family.


    Of course, Gutierrez's family is just as corrupt and filthy as he is.  In November 2010, Kim Geiger (CHICAGO TRIBUNE) reported:


     In 2010, Gutierrez paid his wife, Soraida, $37,000 for services listed as account manager, fundraiser manager and treasurer.
    "Soraida Gutierrez resigned from her successful, well-compensated, Wall Street investment banking career last year to work full-time for the Gutierrez for Congress campaign," Douglas Rivlin, the congressman's press secretary, said in a statement. "In her capacity as treasurer and fundraiser, she meets regularly with FEC officials, so her role is hardly a secret and a matter of public record."
    From 2004 to 2009, one of Gutierrez's daughters, Omaira Gutierrez, was paid $4,270 for managing the campaign's accounts. His other daughter, Jessica Gutierrez, was paid $600 in 2004 to assist with a fundraising project.



    Just your typical Hillary Clinton supporter -- vile, corrupt, disgusting, a tool for Wall Street.




















    Posted by at

    Sanders Visits U.S.-Mexican Border

    This is from Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination:

    •  
    Bernie Sanders walking alongside the U.S.-Mexican border.NOGALES, Ariz. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday made an emotional visit to the U.S.-Mexican border. Sanders was joined during the visit by Rep. Raúl Grijalva, Cook County Commissioner Jesús “Chuy” Garcia, Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada and DREAMers Jessica Elizabeth Orellana Díaz and Julio Zuniga.


    “As I have traveled around this country and talked to immigrant families, and particularly Latino immigrant families, I am struck by the fear and sadness that grips so many of them,” Sanders said following the visit. “Fathers or mothers or both sent out of the country having to leave their minor children with relatives or guardians here in the United States. A U.S. servicemember whose spouse was deported. A 12 year old boy who longs to be reunited with his mother. This human suffering has got to end. That is why I am here today.”
    In November, Sanders introduced the most comprehensive plan to tackle a broken immigration system of any candidate in the 2016 race for the White House. The New York Times called it “reality-based, moderate, practical and hopeful” in an editorial praising the platform. “His plan starts with the right premise: that immigrants should be welcomed and assimilated, not criminalized and exploited,” the editorial board wrote. “His proposals seek to uphold American values, bolster the rule of law, bolster the economy and protect and honor families.”
    Touring the border here in Nogales, Arizona. I'm struck by the fear and sadness that grips so many families.
    If elected, Sanders would:
    Touring the border here in Nogales, Arizona. I'm struck by the fear and sadness that grips so many families.
    • Dismantle inhumane deportation programs and private detention centers.
    • Offer humane treatment and asylum to victims of domestic violence and minors fleeing from dangerous circumstances in Latin America.
    • End policies that discriminate against women and ensure that mothers and wives who come into the United States with their families have the same right to work as their partners.
    • Pave the way for a swift legislative path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants.
    • Close loopholes that allow federal agencies to use racial and ethnic profiling at the border.
    • Ensure our border remains secure and protects local communities.
    • Make it easier for immigrants to access the judicial system.
    • Increase oversight of key Department of Homeland Security agencies to guard against waste, fraud and abuse.
    • Allow the return of deported immigrants if they would have been eligible to stay under the 2013 immigration bill.
    Sanders will fight for comprehensive immigration reform to provide a pathway to citizenship for 11 million aspiring Americans, but he will not wait for a dysfunctional Congress to act. Instead, during the first 100 days of his presidency, he will take executive action to allow all undocumented people who have been in the United States for at least five years to stay in the country without fear of being deported.

    To read Sanders’ immigration plan, click here.


    xx
    Posted by at

    Obama's Seven Slaughters: It's a Disease, Not a Doctrine

    This is from David Swanson:



    Obama's Seven Slaughters: It's a Disease, Not a Doctrine
    By David Swanson,Telesur
    Obama
    Former Israeli prison guard Jeffrey Goldberg's "The Obama Doctrine" in The Atlantic presents President Barack Obama's view of his own foreign policy (with input from a few of his close subordinates). Obama views himself as a radical leader in military restraint, in brave resistance to war mongers, and in scaling back excessive fear mongering in U.S. culture.


    The U.S. President who has overseen the highest Pentagon budget in history, created drone wars, launched wars against the will of Congress, dramatically expanded foreign arms sales and special operations and the arming of proxies, claimed to be "really good at killing people," and openly bragged about having bombed seven nations that are inhabited largely by dark-skinned Muslims, bolsters his "doctrine" by offering accurate antiwar assessments of Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush's wars. (He essentially admits to Reagan's October Surprise negotiations with Iran that sabotaged the 1980 U.S. elections.) Obama's and Goldberg's discussion of Obama's own wars does not display the same accuracy or wisdom.


    The Goldberg / Obama portrait is shaped largely by the choice of what to include. The primary focus is on Obama's 2013 reversal of his plan to bomb Syria, with a minor emphasis on his negotiation of the Iran nuclear agreement. Much of his more militaristic behavior is completely ignored or brushed aside in passing reference. And even in those cases that come into focus, myths go unquestioned -- even when they are debunked later in this same book-length article.


    Goldberg writes as unquestioned fact that "Assad's army had murdered more than 1,400 civilians with Sarin gas" many paragraphs prior to stating that one of Obama's reasons for reversing course on bombing Syria was the CIA's warning that this claim was "not a slam dunk." Goldberg writes that "the strong sentiment inside the Obama administration was that Assad had earned dire punishment." 


    Thus a proposal to drop 500-pound bombs all over Syria, killing countless people, is made respectable in Washington by depicting it as revenge, and nowhere does Goldberg mention oil pipelines, a Russian rivalry, the overthrow of Assad as a step toward Iranian overthrow, or other factors actually at work for which the dubious chemical weapons claims served as an excuse to bomb.


    Of course, not bombing was the right thing to do, and Obama deserves praise for it, while Hillary Clinton's publicly stated belief that this was the wrong decision, and John Kerry's continued private advocacy for bombing, are reprehensible. It's also quite valuable that Obama does something rare in this article when he admits that public and Congressional and British opposition to bombing Syria helped prevent him from committing that crime. This is clearly not a false claim but the admission of what is generally denied by U.S. politicians whom even the public cheers for their usual pretense of ignoring polls and protests.



    But the public was even more opposed in polls (if less engaged as activists) to arming proxies in Syria. Obama commissioned a CIA report on the past success or failure of such operations, and the CIA admitted there had been no successes (except in 1980s Afghanistan, which involved a bit of well-known blowback). So, Obama chose not, as he puts it, to "do stupid s**t," opting instead to do halfway stupid s**t, which proved quite predictably to make matters worse, and to make cries for even stupider s**t shriller.


    In a similar manner, though it goes virtually unmentioned in Goldberg's tome, Obama has launched wars with drones that he has viewed as the exercise of great restraint in comparison to the launching of ground wars. But the drone wars kill large numbers and do so just as indiscriminately, and they contribute to the destabilization of nations just as disastrously. When Obama was holding up Yemen as a model success, some of us were pointing out that the drone war had not replaced some other kind of war but would probably lead to one. Now, Obama, whose "doctrine" claims to have discovered the unimportance of the Middle East (in comparison with the supposed need to build up for wars in the Far East), is dealing unprecedented levels of weapons to Middle Eastern nations, first and foremost to Saudi Arabia. And Obama's military is collaborating in the Saudi bombing of Yemen, which is killing thousands and fueling al Qaeda. Obama, through Goldberg, blames his Saudi po licy on "foreign-policy orthodoxy," which somehow "compels" him to do this particular stupid shit -- if that's a sufficiently harsh term for mass murder.


    Obama's Only-Do-Halfway-Stupid-S**t doctrine has proven most disastrous where it has succeeded in overthrowing governments, as in Libya. Obama now says that illegally overthrowing the Libyan government "didn't work." But the President pretends, and Goldberg lets him, that the United Nations authorized that action, that the best laid plans were made for after the regime change (in fact, none were), and that Gadaffi was threatening to slaughter civilians in Benghazi. Obama even seems to claim that things would have been even worse somehow without his criminal action. That he's resumed bombing Libya in an effort to fix what he broke by bombing Libya gets the barest mention.
    Obama's doctrine has also included tripling down on the stupidest of stupid s**t. Through Goldberg he blames the Pentagon for imposing an escalation of troops in Afghanistan on him, though the escalation he has in mind is clearly the second one he oversaw, not the first, the one that tripled the war he'd inherited, not the one that doubled it and which he'd promised as a candidate for the presidency. When military commanders publicly insisted on that escalation, Obama said nothing. 


    When one of them made some minor rude comments to Rolling Stone, in contrast, Obama fired him.
    Obama laughably claims to be an internationalist (in part, he brags, because he's forced other countries to buy more weapons). This is the same Obama whose abuse of the U.N. in attacking Libya finally moved China and Russia to block a similar attempt on Syria. Obama even claims that he backed off bombing Syria in 2013 because the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of war. This is the same Obama who has since been bombing Syria and who told Congress in his final State of the Union speech that he'd wage wars with or without them -- as he's done in Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. Goldberg even quotes an "expert" characterizing the Obama doctrine as "spending less" despite Obama's increases in military spending.



    Goldberg's Obama uses the military primarily for human rights, supported the uprising of the Arab Spring, and has developed a very sage and serious approach to ISIS based on his analysis of a Batman movie. ISIS, in Goldberg's telling, was created by the Saudis and Gulf states plus Assad, with no mention of the U.S. role in destroying Iraq or arming Syrian rebels. In fact, Obama, through Goldberg, restates the imperial view that backward Middle Easterners suffer from millennia-old tribalism, while the United States brings humanitarian services to all it touches. In Obama-Goldberg history, Russia invaded Crimea, only the threat of war made Syria give up its chemical weapons, and Rwanda was a missed opportunity for war, not the result of U.S.-backed war and assassination.


    "Sometimes you have to take a life to save even more lives," says Obama confidant John Brennan, pushing the drone propaganda also found in the film, Eye in the Sky. Facts are apparently irrelevant to a portrait of a president. Obama, who signed an executive order last year ridiculously declaring Venezuela to be a national security threat tells Goldberg that he wisely came into office in 2009 and squashed any silly idea that Venezuela was any kind of threat. Goldberg's Obama is a peacemaker with Russia whose weapons build-up on Russia's border goes unmentioned, as does the coup in Ukraine, even as Obama packs insults of Vladimir Putin into this article.


    The fact is that Barack Obama has slaughtered human beings with missiles and bombs in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia -- and every one of those places is worse off for it. He's passing his successor greater war-making powers than ever possessed by any previous member of the human species. The unquestioned assumptions of his doctrine look more like a disease. There's little an American president could do to make things better in the Middle East, he says, never stopping to consider the possibility of halting arms shipments, stopping the bombings, grounding the drones, ceasing the overthrows, dropping support for dictators, withdrawing troops, paying reparations, giving aid, shifting to green energy, and treating others with respectful cooperation. Those sorts of things just don't qualify as a doctrine in Washington, D.C.


    --


    David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.


    Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook.



    War Is A Lie: Second Edition, published by Just World Books on April 5, 2016. Please buy it online that day. I'll come anywhere in the world to speak about it. Invite me!
















    Posted by at

    Friday, March 18, 2016

    Leading vets group urges Congress to increase focus on veterans in this election year

    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America issued the following this week:

    PRESS CONTACT
    Tel: 212-982-9699

    press@iava.org

     WASHINGTON (March 16, 2016) – Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) Founder and CEO Paul Rieckhoff testified this morning before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. Rieckhoff presented IAVA’s top policy priorities, which is derived based on the feedback from IAVA’s robust and diverse membership. As 22 veterans continue to die by suicide each day, veteran suicide remains the number one priority for the post-9/11 community.


    As Rieckhoff testified, “As you all know, this time last year we were celebrating the enactment of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act. Despite this historic and bipartisan success, suicide among veterans is still a crisis. IAVA is also very concerned that women veterans die by suicide at nearly six times the rate of civilian women, and we call on Congress to pass the Female Suicide Prevention Act, recently approved unanimously by the House.”


    IAVA has been on the frontlines of the fight to end veteran suicide, leading the effort to get the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act signed into law in Feb. 2015. Following IAVA’s recommendations at the Feb. 2016 national summit, “Preventing Veteran Suicide–A Call to Action,” the VA announced last week plans to elevate its Suicide Prevention Office.  Rieckhoff will ask Congress to defend the promise to our veterans by adequately funding and staffing the VA Suicide Prevention Office, as well as fully implementing the Clay Hunt SAV Act and passing the Female Suicide Prevention Act (H.R.2915/S.2487).


    Rieckhoff also issued a call to action for Congress to fully recognize and improve services for women veterans, reform government for today’s veterans and defend veteran and military education benefits.
    “Since 2009, over one million veterans and their families have come to rely upon the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Among IAVA’s own members, 50 percent of member survey respondents have used the Post-9/11 GI Bill themselves or transferred it to their dependents. Ignoring these facts, the House’s recent use of the GI Bill as a piggy bank to fund other veterans programs is of great concern to IAVA.


    While there are initiatives in the omnibus legislation that we have supported, a 50 percent reduction in the housing allowance for veterans’ children who will receive transferred GI Bill benefits is a breach in trust,” Rieckhoff testified.


    IAVA was the leading veterans service organization driving the passage of the historic Post-9/11 GI Bill in 2008 and in championing upgrades in 2010 and 2014. These upgrades simplified and improved tuition benefits, expanded eligibility to the National Guard, included vocational programs and made nationwide in-state tuition rates a possibility for new veterans. IAVA calls on stakeholders in the veteran community to urge Congress not to make cuts to these critical education benefits.
    Rieckhoff’s full testimony can be found here.
    Note to media: Email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699 to speak with IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff or IAVA leadership.
    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the leading post-9/11 veteran empowerment organization (VEO) with the most diverse and rapidly growing membership in America. As a non-profit founded in 2004, IAVA’s mission is to connect, unite and empower post-9/11 veterans. Celebrating its 11th year anniversary, IAVA has connected more than 1.2 million veterans with resources and community, and provided more than 5,800 veterans with personalized support from IAVA’s Master’s level social workers.






















    Posted by at

    Does breaking the glass ceiling liberate women?

    This is a repost from Great Britain's SOCIALIST WORKER:


    Does breaking the glass ceiling liberate women?

    Sadie Robinson looks at what difference electing a woman president would have in the fight against sexism

    Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in January - would electing her benefit women?
    Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail in January - would electing her benefit women? (Pic: Gage Skidmore/flickr)


    The race for the US presidency has raised the prospect of a woman becoming leader of the world’s most powerful country for the first time.


    Hillary Clinton is fighting to be the Democratic Party candidate in the presidential election. Some argue that a Clinton victory would mark a step forward for women’s rights.


    It would certainly be a milestone to have a female US president. But it wouldn’t guarantee improvements for ordinary women.


    The relative lack of women in governments reflects the oppression that exists in society. A “glass ceiling” means that the higher up society you go, the fewer women you find.


    Struggles by ordinary people have challenged the idea that women should know their place in society. It has forced open spaces that were previously closed.


    But the system can accommodate a few women in high-up positions while oppression keeps the rest down. And ultimately their politics and class matter more than their gender.


    Britain’s first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, brought in policies that made working class women’s lives worse.


    German chancellor Angela Merkel is a key figure in forcing more austerity on Greece, hitting ordinary women.


    Hillary Clinton is an establishment candidate who relies on huge corporate backing to finance her campaign.


    She supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and backs welfare cuts. Clinton would not fight to improve the lives of ordinary women if elected.


    It would be a far bigger political earthquake if Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a socialist, became US president.


    Clinton has attacked Sanders for focusing on inequality and poverty. She argues that it’s “not enough” to “break up the banks”. And she claims making class demands ignores oppression.
    Inequality


    In a speech last month she said poverty among black people was not just about “economic inequality” but also “racial equality”.


    Of course this is true. But the aim of Clinton’s argument is to weaken Sanders’ class demands in the guise of raising demands about oppression.


    Sanders’ policies include increasing benefits, a $15 (£10.60) an hour minimum wage, free tuition for students and fewer people in jail.


    These things would make a much bigger difference to the lives of ordinary black people and women in the US than anything Clinton is proposing.


    Similar arguments have been heard in Britain. In the Labour leadership contest last year, Yvette Cooper campaigned heavily on the basis that she was a “working mum”.


    She presented herself as a defender of women’s rights and claimed she was better placed to understand the problems women face.


    But it was far better for working class women that Jeremy Corbyn, not Yvette Cooper, won the election.


    Cooper supported the Tories’ benefit cap and attacks on claimants. She refused to stand up to cuts that disproportionately affect women. In contrast Corbyn has spoken out against austerity.


    The major advances in women’s lives–from the right to vote to abortion rights–have been won through struggle. This doesn’t make elections irrelevant.


    The election of Barack Obama as the first black US president in 2008 made black people feel more confident to make demands on the system.


    Corbyn’s election has politicised more people and made those who hate war, racism and neoliberalism feel stronger.


    Revolutionaries should use this mood to build struggles that can win real changes and counter the impact of oppression in the here and now.


    And we need to build resistance that can build a world where we make oppression history.











    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)