Iowa. The race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues. Tonight, Iowa speaks. Their caucus will be the first binding event (as opposed to polling) of the race.
War Hawk Joe Biden continues to struggle and things get tense for him and for his supporters. Chief among them War Hawk John Kerry. John went flouncing into Iowa this past weekend. He wore a bomber jacket and a big, blue scarf on Saturday. Which was the bigger joke? A tiny model (female) could have maybe pulled off that big scarf. On John it was just laughable. Like the leather bomber jacket. John does like to play dress up. These days. But in 1971, he threw away his medals. In 2004, during his failed run for presidency, this issue came up. And John first lied and stated he only threw away ribbons. Then ABC NEWS got a hold of a taped interview he did right after he threw the medals and in that interview he was very clear he threw the medals -- including the Bronze Star.
Now I've got no problem with someone throwing medals or not throwing medals. I do have a problem with a 76-year-old man playing dress up in public. Elise Labott may like those games, but the rest of us don't so save it for her, John, save it all for her.
His dress up on Saturday was just like his playtime as Secretary of State. Throughout his time in the Senate, he voiced respect for the State Dept but the minute he was made Secretary of State, he apparently felt that wasn't good enough and started acting as though he were Secretary of Defense. We pointed that out here repeatedly, yes. But people working in both departments -- State and Defense -- were pointing it out as well. He was the least liked member of Barack Obama's second administration.
In Iowa, he's supposed to be rallying people to support Joe Biden -- Joe, like John, voted for the Iraq War. That's only one of many traits they share in common.
So imagine everyone's shock when Jonathan Allen (NBC NEWS) overheard John on a phone call on Sunday. From NBC NEWS:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry — one of Joe Biden's highest-profile endorsers — was overheard Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel explaining what he would have to do to enter the presidential race amid "the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole."
Sitting
in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel, Kerry was
overheard by an NBC News analyst saying "maybe I'm f---ing deluding
myself here" and explaining that to run, he'd have to step down from the
board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches.
Kerry said donors like venture capitalist Doug Hickey would have to
"raise a couple of million," adding that such donors "now have the reality of Bernie."
Asked
about the call later Sunday, Kerry said he was "absolutely not"
contemplating joining the Democratic primary race. He reiterated the
sentiment in a tweet later, saying "any report otherwise is f---ing (or
categorically) false." Minutes later, he deleted the tweet and reposted it without the expletive.
Jonathan Allen heard him but John wants to lie and pretend he didn't say it. Just like all the pretense and lies he told about the medals (again, see the ABC NEWS report). John's a liar. We're not married to him, we don't have to believe his lies.
So let's talk about what John's contemplating. In terms of Joe Biden? It goes to the lack of support Joe really has. Polling is soft data. You're asking people who they might support in the future. Responses are based on name recognition and headlines -- not actual reports. Whomever the press declares the front runner will always be at the top of the polls before the first caucus and first primary.
We're not in Iowa. Kat, Wally, Ava and I have been in New Hampshire since Friday, January 3rd. Joe's support is awful here. There was a report by some outlet over the weekend insisting that Ukraine and the GOP's use of it in impeachment had harmed Joe Biden.
Maybe.
Maybe the press is just whoring again?
Day after day, as we camp out in New Hampshire, we speak to group after group telling reality about loser Joe. We even have photos -- my personal photos -- of a nice little -- excuse me -- ostentatious dinner that Joe threw. It's part of our AV presentation. And we use it when we talk about the woman who gave birth to Joe Biden's most recent grandchild.
This month, that child will finally receive some form of financial support. The court has ordered that begin this month. The court has noted that the payments will probably increase -- Joe's son Hunter Biden, insisting he is broke, has refused to turn over most financial documents to the court. Hunter is currently renting a small mansion in Ben Affleck's neighborhood and tooling around in a rented Porsche -- all while claiming he is broke.
All while his child has lived in poverty.
How is that not an issue to the national press.
Because it's a big issue when we talk to voters. It's a big issue that Deadbeat Dad Hunter Biden, raised by Joe, has had to be court ordered to support the child. It's a big issue that Joe keeps whining about the harm to his family -- those clips are also part of our AV presentation -- his campaign has resulted in. All the poor Hunter statements are included. As are Joe's comments about his grandchildren -- that never include his most recent grandchild -- the one Hunter lied about repeatedly, saying he'd never had sex with the mother of the child -- until the DNA came back.
"Take the test!" people screamed on multiple episodes of Jerry Springer's talk show but suddenly a Deadbeat Dad, a lying sack of trash, isn't a news story?
Or the lying grandfather who keeps mentioning the importance of family in speech after speech but has never reached out to that grandchild and who has not called out his son for being a Deadbeat Dad?
How dare the national press spend month after month with fluff about Joe is a good guy.
He raised a Deadbeat Dad. He refused to meet or support his own grandchild. He refused to call out his son for this.
Do you not know how many families across the country are impacted by Deadbeat Dads at one point or another?
This is a national issue but a male dominated and male identifying press corps has treated this as a non-issue.
If it's your daughter that's dealing with a Deadbeat Dad, it's an issue. You know the way she has to struggle, you know the pain she has to endure. You know your grandchild got stuck with a bastard of a father who can't be counted on for anything. You know that you're probably digging into your own pockets to try to help your daughter and your grandchild because some lazy sack of s**t doesn't want to take responsibility.
In the civil courts, child support is one of the biggest issues in terms of filing.
This is a national issue. But the national press -- sexist pigs till the very end, I'm sure -- has treated this as a bit of humor or as a non-issue. It's not a non-issue to families across America.
Joe swears he's a leader and that he's fit to be president. But for over a year, Hunter Biden refused to pay child support and had to be dragged into court to finally start to pay even a little of what he owes his child.
That's not minor, that goes to character. And Joe has praised Hunter through the roof since April -- we've got the video as part of our AV presentation -- and never called him out. Nor has Joe ever acknowledged his latest grandchild.
It goes to character and it was on the biggest issues effecting families across the country.
But somehow the male-centric press doesn't want to talk about it.
So Joe's doing poorly in Iowa.
But John's remarks?
I'd seen internal polling from Joe's campaign (and Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders and Mayor Pete over a month ago -- that's why I said everyone needed to back off Elizabeth, that after Iowa, she'd probably be considering folding her campaign). He was not doing well in Iowa.
As poorly as he was polling then, I'm still shocked by the public panic John Kerry had yesterday. I haven't seen Joe's internal polling (meaning the polling the campaign itself is doing) in a few weeks but it must be even worse for John to be in a panic like that.
John's reported conversation goes to (a) how much certain factions loathe Bernie sanders and (b) how badly Joe is performing.
Many supporting Bernie jumped to the (a) part. John's a loser. He couldn't even win against Bully Boy Bush in 2004. He's a loser. If he supported Bernie, we should all worry.
But let's talk about (b). Joe is doing awful in Iowa. And in New Hampshire. John's probably aware of New Hampshire from Joe's campaign. Joe's doing so awful that John Kerry thinks he's going to be forced to hop into the race and save the day.
As if America's willing to endure more shots of John sporting his tiny knob in those tight shorts as he windsurfs.
John Kerry is a joke. In Boston, they talk about his affairs and the women he comes onto.
He was protected in 2004. That's not the case today. He's a #MeToo away from public embarrassment and public shame.
Sixteen years after his crushing defeat, he thinks he can run again? Well, at least his ego is bigger than his small penis.
Joe is doing so poorly that John's whining he'll have to enter the race and he'll have to give up his paid speaking and his seat on Bank of America and whine on, John Kerry, whine on.
Grasp how deluded and fake ass he truly is. He thinks he can jump in (this week?) and immediately cancel paid speeches and then paid speeches won't be an issue in a campaign?
He really thinks the American people are suckers, doesn't he?
Well that goes to the mind set that Joe Biden attracts, the mind set that is bound and determined to defeat Bernie Sanders.
Grasp that. This is what they will do to try to defeat Bernie.
Not to try to defeat Donald Trump.
But to defeat Bernie.
Bernie scares them because he's running a campaign built around real issues.
I'm pro-choice and always will be. But for years certain Democrats -- that includes John -- have thought all they have to do is offer some weak ass support of Roe v. Wade and we'd vote for them. They've avoided other issues (and they've chipped away at Roe, let's be honest).
Bernie, like FDR before him, is addressing those issues.
America has a big enough pie that all should be served a slice. But that's not the Joe Biden or John Kerry mind set. If this need is addressed, where will the money for wars and for corporations come from.
John might have to give up his paid speeches!!!!
Who's paying him?
Since the Iraq War broke out -- actually, one month before -- I've been on the road speaking out. I maybe take the equivalent of three weeks off from that a year. How much do I charge for a speech? Zero. I'm not speaking to investors or corporations. I don't charge a damn thing. (Nor do I pass a cup around before, during or after speaking.)
John Kerry, who's wealthy and then some due to his wife (I like Teresa), is going around giving speeches after leaving government. Do you know how much those speeches could mean to, for example, high schoolers?
But they don't have the cash so John's not going to speak to them.
I speak to them. I learn so much from them.
John's greed keeps him away from the public and away from their needs. He's not going to speak to you unless you pay him -- he's a whore who wants his money upfront.
Bernie scares the hell out of John because Bernie is of the people and running a people fueled and people supported campaign.
Big Money John, Dirty Corporate Money John finds that threatening.
I simply do not accept a situation where, in the richest country on Earth, our people are afraid to go to the emergency room when they are hurt or sick because they cannot afford the bill.
That's got to change. We need Medicare for All.
John Kerry's actions and remarks are shameful. They go to greed, to avarice. In a functional press, he would be rebuked. We don't have a functional press. We have a press that treats greed as something good. We have a press that covers for Deadbeat Dads.
Let's turn to Iraq and let's drop back to Saturday's snapshot:
Mid-day, there was speculation that a new prime minister-designate might be appointed in Iraq. A few hours later came the official announcement President Barham Salih had named Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi prime minister-designate.
Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi introduced as new Iraqi PM
bit.ly/3b4RQQv
Christen McCurdy (UPI) gets it right, "Protests broke out in the streets of Iraq Saturday after Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi was named Iraq's minister-designate. Allawi has a month to form a new government, which he will lead until early elections."
Will he form a new government?
The Iraqi Constitution gives a prime minister-designate one month to form a cabinet. That's all they have to do to move from designate to prime minister. But the Constitution has not been followed. Nouri al-Maliki was named designate two times and both times he failed to produce a full Cabinet. Hayder al-Abadi came next and he failed as well. Adel Abdul Mahdi, ahead of being named designate, insisted that the 30 day clause should be followed and a full cabinet formed. But, once named, he quickly changed his view.
Why does it matter?
Iraq's government is filled with various factions and sects. To preside over the government as prime minister, you need to demonstrate that you can lead and build consensus. If you can't form a Cabinet, you're not going to be able to accomplish anything.
And that's what we've seen over and over with every prime minister since the 2005 Constitution.
The test is in place to demonstrate that the person is capable of governing. When they get to bypass that measure, it's no surprise that Iraq ends up with a non-functioning government over and over and over.
[. . .]
Amy Held and Jane Arraf (NPR) report:
They [the protesters] have rejected Allawi's candidacy, saying anyone who previously held a Cabinet post is tainted. Allawi served as a Cabinet minister in two previous governments.
But Allawi comes to power with the essential support of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political bloc is one of the biggest in parliament.
Sadr followers moved back into Tahrir Square on Saturday in an apparent push to limit anti-Allawi protests.
Allawi's nomination is opposed by another leading Shiite politician, former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Allawi resigned from Maliki's government in 2007 over what he called Maliki's sectarian policies. Maliki, a Shiite, is widely blamed for fueling sectarian strife between Iraq's Shia and Sunni populations while he was in power between 2006 and 2014. His opposition to Allawi, who is also Shiite, could complicate the prime minister's efforts to compile a Cabinet based on individual qualifications rather than their loyalties to parties — also a key demand of anti-government protesters.
In the popular unrest that has swept the country, demonstrators are calling for jobs, an end to corruption and what they see as Iran's meddling in Iraq's internal affairs.
Iraqi security forces and the Iran-backed militias affiliated with them have unleashed a brutal response, killing at least 600 protesters in the four months since demonstrations have unfolded.
Search results
"We must protect you instead of suppressing you. The weapons of the state should be used against those who attack you."
Iraq's new PM Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi tells protesters
Linah Alsaafin (ALJAZEERA) adds:
Moments after his appointment was announced, Allawi shared a pre-recorded video on his Twitter page, where he addressed the protesters directly.
"My power is derived from you," he began. "If it were not for your courage and sacrifices then there would have been no changes in the country."
"You protested for your homeland, and if I am not able to fulfill your demands that I am unworthy of this position," he added.
However, protesters in the capital reacted with dismay, saying that he represented the old ruling elite.
One protester, 25-year-old Yousef Abd, said there is "no doubt we reject Allawi in the position of prime minister".
"If the government insists on forcing him on us we will definitely escalate things," he told Al Jazeera via telephone from Tahrir Square.
Mohammed Aqeel, another protester agreed.
"The general feeling from most protest sites is that they view Allawi as being cut from the same cloth as the politicians in power," he told Al Jazeera. "He belongs to the same system we don't want."
According to Aqeel, large student demonstrations were expected to take place on Sunday against Allawi’s appointment, which he hoped would unite the protest movement in Tahrir.
Earlier on Saturday, skirmishes had taken place between Sadrist supporters and politically independent protesters, after the former took over the strategic Turkish restaurant building and drove out the other protesters from there.
- Iraq Protest Camps Splinter Over Cleric Moqtada Sadr’s Backing of New PM Mohammad Allawi https://www.latestly.com/world/iraq-protest-camps-splinter-over-cleric-moqtada-sadrs-backing-of-new-pm-mohammad-allawi-1513934.html … #Iraq #MoqtadaSadr #MohammedAllawi
- #IraqProtests defeated all known militia until the most dangerous one was exposed, Muqtada alsadr who’s exposed now as worst rotten connection to #Iran with a dangerous effect on the streets of iraq as He unleashed his militia to brutally end protests at all costs #العراق__ينتفض
- After the attack on the Free #Iraq rebels by the blue hats gang of the traitor Muqtada AlSadr, the Iraqi revolutionaries respond to them and continue the protests against them #بغداد_ساحة_التحرير #نازل_اخذ_حقي
- The death toll from anti-government protests in #Iraq has risen to 556, Iraq’s Independent High Commission for #HumanRights said
Moqtada al-Sadr has destroyed his own image. As he attempted to be a national official, someone who looked out for all of Iraq, we referred to him as "Shi'ite cleric and movement leader." The international press was still calling him "radical cleric" Moqtada. But he destroyed all of that and did so in the blink of an eye. It left ANTIWAR.COM confused. Two weekends ago, they had a very baffling post. I didn't call them out for that -- and am not calling them out now. It was very confusing, Moqtada's sudden move. But I did call out Mustafa Habib because he was insisting that anyone critiquing Moqtada didn't understand that within Iraq nothing had changed and this wasn't an issue and blah blah blah.
I called him out last Monday, I said he was dead wrong and I stood by that then. I certainly stand by it a week later when everything I said is not only true, it's also publicly known.
But what troubles me right now is a Tweet like this.
Remarkable, while the followers of Al-Sadr managed to easily control on Tahrir Square, but they had difficulty controlling the demonstrations of #Nasiriyah, less in #Basra
This is not a difference of opinion, like last Monday. This is Mustafa apparently -- correct me if I'm wrong, Mustafa -- endorsing the actions of Moqtada's followers? We're talking about the militis, not the people bused in for a march on one day. And the attacks on those in Tahrir Square and those in Nasiriyah and in Basra? People have died in those attacks.
And Mustafa finds it "remarkable" -- these attacks -- and how they worked in Tahrir Square but not so much elsewhere?
If he's got an article he's written, he should link to it. Twitter's not a medium for deep discussions. I may be misunderstanding his Tweet. But as I'm reading it, with the context of the events (the attacks) that took place, that's a pretty offensive Tweet.
