Saturday, February 11, 2023

Libya, Roseanne

At Rebecca's request, we're starting with this from a 2014 Iraq snapshot (and I'll note the end of the exerpt with "------"):

Thursday, January 2, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the New York Times played people for fools on Benghazi, today they rewrite history on Iraq, 'media watchdog' Greg Mitchell idiotically reTweets the Times, Nouri assaults Anbar, children are being killed, where did Iraq get fighter jets, and so very much more.

We're going to start with Benghazi.  September 11, 2012, an attack in Benghazi left 4 Americans dead: Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens.

Sunday, the New York Times published David Kirkpatrick's garbage on the Benghazi attack.  I heard in November, from a White House friend, that the Times was doing a major front page article on the attack to help improve Susan Rice's image.  The White House designated Rice a press leaker in the first term and she remains that.  She is one of those 'government officials' who is given anonymity to leak flattering details about the White House or to attack White House opponents.

The silly Bob Somerby applauded the article, he wasn't the only one to do so.  I avoided the article thinking it would need a mention or two in the year-in-review.  Then I read it when I started writing  "2013: The Year of Exposure."

People who value journalism should not value this crap.  Andrew Rosenthal wrote an idiotic defense of the article and attack on its critics.  When the paper gets defensive, it's because they're caught lying.

Not caught by the people, they never give a damn about that.  But Democrats and Republicans in Congress have pushed back.  That's a bit of a surprise if you consider this is a week when people take time off.

So now the paper gets defensive.

In the year-in-review, I focused on the YouTube nonsense.  In paragraph ten of the long, long article, Kirkpatrick claims that the video is connected to the attack.

Alright then.  Walk us through it.

I believe he's given at least 7,200 words.

Few people will get 1,000 words to back up their point.

But Kirkpatrick can't back up his point.  The closest he comes is telling you an Egyptian program broadcast a clip of the video then moves to a Libyan man who supposedly backs up that the program is watched in Libya -- apparently by those with satellite TV.

Here's the thing though.  The Libyan man says they watch the Egyptian program on TV Fridays before morning prayers.  Okay well there are problems with that claim but let's let it go forward.  The article tells us that the Egyptian program aired the clip in the September 8th program.  Since the attack was in September 2012, we're talking about September 8, 2012.

Here are the two paragraphs we're talking about.

Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest outside their embassy.
No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

I can't believe how gullible and complaint people are.

Did no one read this damn report?

It's too long, granted.  But if you read it where was your brain?

September 8, 2012, one of the entries that went up here was "Nouri's criminal ways."  What didn't go up?  An Iraq snapshot.  Why was that?

I don't do a snapshot on Saturdays.

The argument is the Egyptian program popularized the video and the program is watched in Libya Friday mornings before prayers and that Friday they watched the program, saw the clip, it incited rage.  None of that is proven or even backed up.  But worst of all, if the clip was broadcast September 8th, no one in Libya saw it on that Friday because that was Friday, September 7, 2012.

Not only did the readers -- if anyone did read it -- fail to use their critical thinking, but there was no fact check of this awful article.

This article -- in an earlier form -- was so bad that the paper didn't run it.  In June, Kirkpatrick wrote a version of it.

You need to grow the hell up and grasp when you're being conned.  An article that didn't qualify to the paper as "all the news that's fit to print" in June is printed at great length in December?

What changed?

The deal to rehabilitate Susan Rice's image.

You're being conned and you're being lied to and if that's okay with you, then cheer the stupid article, but if you've got a brain in your head, now's the time to use it.


I don't know mind calling out lies and cons.  I don't mind that I'm often attacked for it by the especially stupid.  I don't go around, years later saying, "Look, I was right!"  I never doubted what I wrote above.  Again, it's basic, a video released on Saturday September 8th could not have been the cause of an event that took place the day before.  THE NEW YORK TIMES thought you were stupid and, sadly, many people were.  Not just Bob Somerby, but many people.

Rebecca was working on a post about something else (Sidney Blumenthal -- specifically did Chris Hitchens say Blumenthal beat his wife? -- yes, Hitchens did say that) and she found Dylan Matthew's 2016 article for VOX which includes:

Blumenthal also passed along information related to the Benghazi attack, sending Clinton an email the day after the attack blaming it on protesters angry about a vehemently anti-Islam YouTube video titled "The Innocence of Muslims," which was sparking worldwide protests around that time. Clinton passed the email on to Sullivan. But while this was the initial theory of the intelligence community, it proved to be false, as militants actually showed up specifically to attack the US mission in Libya. A day later, Blumenthal followed up with an email stating that Ansar al-Sharia, a jihadist group, had pre-planned the attack and used the protest as a cover, which contradicted the administration's public statements at the time. That's mostly right; Ansar al-Sharia members were involved but they weren't the only attackers, and the attack was one of opportunity, rather than being preplanned.


Yeah, it was a lie, it was always a lie.  I'm sorry dumb whores like Bob Somerby fell for it.  I don't have the need to go back to every time I went out on the limb and was right.  I'm living in today.

But let's note again, the NYT article did not meet the basics and should never have passed a fact check.  A video released the day after an attack could not have been seen before the attack and outraged people to cause an attack.  Saturday follows Friday, not the other way around.

These basic observations and my analytical scores are the reason ________ (your hero, not mine), set me up with a lunch that I thought was a blind date and turned out instead to be CIA recruitment.  Not being a dirty whore like Gloria Steinem, I was outraged and said no.  The CIA is not your friend and it's not a hero.  It's amazing how no one in the press ever wants to deal with the CIA's actions on US campuses or, for that matter, their close -- but clandestine -- relationships with so many US faculty.  (For the record, I wasn't thrilled about the blind date aspect when I thought that's what I was being set up on but I wrote it off as a college professor who cared about me thinking he was doing me a favor.)  (And for the record, I have told him to his face that he needs to get honest and that if he dies and hasn't been honest then I'm probably outing him here.)  (It won't be such a shock.  Most people have caught on that he's not the left hero that they once thought he was.)

Other things?

Carla asked if I had missed the promo for Roseanne Barr's upcoming comedy special.  I haven't missed it.  I thought I would post it here and then I made the mistake of streaming it.

It's a comedy special.  FOX NATION clearly doesn't understand comedy.  They're promoting it as some sort of political talk -- with pompous music in the long segments between Roseanne speaking.  It does not make you want to watch the special.  I believe and hope that the commercial is just proof that FOX NATION doesn't know what it's doing.  In an earlier time, it tried to do entertainment -- Roger Ailes' MYTV was a huge failure.  

I hope the special's funny and I have no problem noting that it will air Monday on FOX NATION -- start airing on Monday.  I'll even note that in the snapshot.  But the trailer is the worst trailer I've ever seen.  Roseanne, like most comedians, builds to something.  The nonsense of quoting a line here then providing a passage of pompous music then another line is not how you promote her special.

But FOX NATION isn't trying to help Roseanne.  They're trying to cash in on her and figure the easiest way is to try to make this an Us or Them moment/event.

Carla wondered whether it was possible for Roseanne to come back?

I don't know about ''come back.''  There are people like me who don't feel she did anything to be punished for.  Jerry Seinfeld made that comment and then had to walk it back.  I'm not going to walk it back.  I've known Roseanne for years.  She is not a racist.  I didn't think the Tweet was funny but I didn't believe she meant it to be racist.  I didn't think she was offsides for critiquing Valerie Jarrett (who lined up all her friends and family to organize a media response against Rosanne) but I didn't think the Tweet was funny.  I'm not sure Roseanne was going for a belly life, she might have just been attempting a smile or smirk from readers.  Otherwise, it was just Twitter filler.

Regardless of what it was or was intended as, she did not deserve what happened.

She made a mistake, not the Tweet.  Her mistake was to believe a corporation.  Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were idiots on that in the '00s.  Never believe them.  They asked her not to speak -- ABC asked her -- and that they would handle it.  She respected their wishes.

That was her mistake.

They weren't interested in fixing anything.  They were interested in stealing her creation.

They cancelled the show and then attacked her for putting people out of work.  It was too late for members of the crew to find jobs with ROSEANNE cancelled.  She, ABC insisted, put all of these workers out of work.  Roseanne was then told, 'Sign over the rights to your characters and the crew can keep their jobs.'  

People don't understand, to this day, what was done to Roseanne.  This wasn't a case of her being banned or cancelled.  That's happened to a lot of people.  She was blackmailed and tricked so that ABC could steal her work.

They used the crew not having jobs to force her to okay their using Darlene, Dan, et al in a future series (THE CONNORS).  I have no respect for anyone on that show -- sadly, that does include Katey Sagal.  I've turned down work before because I refused to be part of projects like that.  I like Katey but she should have said no.  

John Goodman can rot in hell.  Screw him.  He'd be nothing without Roseanne.   But he stabs her in the back weekly by continuing to be on the show.  

Sara Gilbert?  A backstabber of the worst order.  Thanks to Roseanne, she had a job from 1988 to 1997.  This was true even when ABC wanted to fire her, called the teenage Gilbert a "d**e" and wanted her replaced with a more 'feminine' actress.  I'm not talking during the pilot, I'm talking about after the show had been airing for over two seasons.  Roseanne stood up for Sara and said no way in hell.

Sara goes on to live a long lie and to fail in every effort after ROSEANNE ends.  She was so rude on THE BIG BANG THEORY that the co-stars didn't want her to be a regular.  

Roseanne brings back ROSEANNE in 2018 and Sara suddenly has an acting career again.  She then actively works to attack Roseanne and to steal the show from her.

Karma slapped her in the face, thankfully.  And it will continue to do so.  

Her life is miserable now and I'm thrilled by that.  She's a coward and she's a thief.  And when THE CONNERS is over, so is she.  

If you don't know the Sara Gilbert story, let me short hand it for you.  Lesbian pretends she's not a lesbian.  Lesbian gets into a longterm relationship with girlfriend/wife who wants lesbian to come out (the whole world suspects already that she's a lesbian).  Lesbian says no.  For nine years, she has relationship (live-in relationship) with girlfriend and hides in the closet.  Finally, in 2010, lesbian tells the world what they already knew.

That alone is disgusting.  But if you don't know THE SARA GILBERT STORY, you may not get why that is so outrageous.  In 2004, they had their first child (Ali Adler gave birth).  In 2007, they had their second child (Gilbert gave birth).

If you don't see that as offensive, you must be desperately in lust with Sara Gilbert.

She is in the closet while living with Ali.  She is in the closet while having one child with Ali.  She is in the closet while having her second child with Ali.  By the time she finally came out, their first child was six years old.

You want to live in a closet, that's on you.  But you force your kids to live in the closet with you?

No.  That's disgusting. 

I have no idea what values you think you're teaching your children by hiding in a closet.  Nor do I know why you would decide to have children while hiding in closet.  (As two women having children, Ali and Sara had to plan the pregnancies, they didn't just 'pop up' with a woopsie!)

But it goes to how disgusting Sara Gilbert is and always has been  And the industry always knew so it wouldn't have effected her standing to come out.  

Roseanne did not lose all of her fans.  In addition, some on the political right adopted her after what took place.  (The political right spent decades loathing Roseanne Barr.)

If FOX NATION truly wants to an entertainment channel, they'd be smart to give Roseanne a sitcom.  In terms of a 'comeback,' my problem with that term is Roseanne didn't lose her fans.  Roseanne didn't release a project that failed.  She was at number one in primetime when ABC cancelled her show.  When we talk of comebacks, we're usually noting someone who had a series of flops (films, TV shows, albums, etc).  That's why I hesitate to use the term "comeback."  This will be more a case of whether or not the industry wants to stop blacklisting her.  

The following sites updated:

In Class with Carr, Ep. 153: #BHM! A Tribute to Dr. Olive Taylor (Bill Russell & Burt Bacharach)

Fckry at a Funeral | Episode 14 | The Fckry with Leslie Jones & Lenny Marcus

"The Great Escape": Saket Soni on Forced Immigrant Labor Used to Clean Up Climate Disasters in U.S.

‘Invisible Workforce’: The Exploitation of the Farmworkers that Feed America

Black Panther Vet Sentenced to Life for Not Framing Assata Shakur

Harry Styles wins Artist of the Year | The BRIT Awards 2023

Lizzo - Special / 2 Be Loved / About Damn Time (Medley) [Live at the BRIT Awards 2023]

Arctic Monkeys - Why'd You Only Call Me When You're High?

Roy State of the Union Experience | The Daily Show


Jane Russell - you won’t BELIEVE what Hollywood made her do! The SIREN famous for her TATAS!


New Issue of The Black Commentator - Feb 9, 2023

The Black Commentator Issue #942 is now Online
Feb 9, 2023

On the Web at

Our postal address is:
P.O. Box 2635

Tarpon Springs FL 34688-2635 

Write Your Reps - It's Time to Confirm Gigi Sohn to the FCC

 From Restore The Fourth:

Restore the Fourth Logo: Flag with black and red stripes and a blue square that says

Dear Friend,

What should be a routine appointment to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has become a partisan battleground. President Biden nominated Gigi Sohn to be the FCC's fifth commissioner in October 2021. Her confirmation has been stalled for almost two years by a smear campaign fueled by partisan sympathies, funded by telecom monopolies, and backed by the surveillance state. The attacks leveled against Sohn are discriminatory and homophobic, and rarely engage with her qualifications.

The FCC's deadlock on key issues, like net neutrality, is failing the American public. A Senate panel will consider Sohn's nomination on February 14th. Its time to consider Sohn's nomination on its merits:

It is clear that Sohn is qualified for the job. The FCC has clear authority to restrict the abusive data practices Big Tech and telecom giants continue to use. Sohn is openly opposed to these mass surveillance dragnets that harm the American public.

It's time we push our Senators to vote for her confirmation. Only then will we see the FCC pursue a Fourth Amendment and privacy based agenda.

We need you to fight for a functioning FCC. Can you email your Senators to tell them to vote for Sohn's confirmation?

Consider supporting the work we do by making a donation here.

William Jackson Harper & Football Party Recipes

Patti LaBelle Extended Interview | The Jennifer Hudson Show

Biden's Greatest Achievements And Worst Failures


Talking post on Iraq, registered sex offender Scott Ritter, the programs that promote him and much more

Tuesday night, I guest posted at Rebecca's site:

Talking post on Iraq, registered sex offender Scott Ritter, the programs that promote him and much more

You've got me tonight -- C.I. of THE COMMON ILLS.  Rebecca wasn't feeling well tonight so I told her I'd do a post for her. I'm just going to write about TCI.

Emma Willman.  She's a comedian.  We used to highlight her and then we stopped.  Why?

It's got nothing to do with her comedy.  It does have to do with shorts.  

It's impossible to embed a video from YOUTUBE if it's a short.  Matteo Lane will sometimes convert his shorts into typical videos.  If he doesn't, we don't post them.

Now I know HTML and I could play with it and repost Emma.  But I don't have that kind of time.  When we first started pausing her for that reason, I thought she'd vary them.  She hasn't.  You've got to go back three months for when she posted a video and not a short.  That's the last one we posted at TCI.

It has nothing to do with a judgment of her comedy or of who she is.  She seems great and she's very funny.  But I'm not going to spend an hour trying to get the HTML to post a short.  

I understand the importance of them but I've got other things to do.

Matteo Lane is posted regularly.  And I'm glad.  One thing we're trying to do is to feature more voices -- especially more LGBTQ+ voices since that community is under attack.  

Matteo is hilarious.  I'd love to be able to tell you that someone recommended him. No, I got lucky and stumbled onto him on YOUTUBE.  

We note AZB -- Alastair and Zac's pop culture program (and Zac's MY BLOODY JUDY which focuses on horror films and TV shows).  And we note Fortune Feimster's comedy.  We note QUEER NEWS TONIGHT.  We note Laverne Cox. We note Matt Baume's excellent work  on how the LGBTQ+ community is portrayed in film and on TV.  And others and are always eager to find more voices and absolutely need to.  

Now there are people we drop.

I'm a feminist and I will not look the other way while a pedophile is paraded on one YOUTUBE left program after another.  Scott Ritter is a convicted pedophile.  He was first arrested when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House.  His lie back then was he was being persecuted -- with the multiple arrests -- because he was speaking out against the Iraq War.

Let's deal with Iraq first.  Mad Maddie Albright is rightly called out for the US sanctions against Iraq in the 90s (and for saying that they were worth it when Leslie Stahl pointed out to her that you've got millions of Iraqi children who are dead because of sanctions).  Guess who supported sanctions?  Scott Ritter.  If you're INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE and you posted the Mad Maddie video years ago -- and it's still up there -- how, much of a hypocrite are you to run Scott Ritter's writing -- as they did months ago.

Another Iraq truth, like John Kerry, Scott Ritter was for the Iraq War before he was against it.  People look the other way on that too.

I am opposed to the Iraq War -- an ongoing war,  US troops remain on the ground there (Staff Sgt Samuel D. Lecce -- a US Marine -- died in Iraq back in December).  I've never needed Scott Ritter to make  point about Iraq or how the war is wrong.

He was arrested multiple times while Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House.  We ignored his 'wisdom' then.  We did call him out.  And we were right to do so.  The last arrest came nearly nine months after Barack Obama had been sworn in as President.   Couldn't blame it on Bully Boy Bush.  And this time, there was no sealing the record, no slap on the wrist, no probation.  This arrest saw the case go to court.  And the court found Scott Ritter guilty.  He went to prison for it.  

He was let out way too early.  He now continues to lie but he is a registered sex offender.  He tries to act like he's tough -- prison didn't toughen dough boy -- and he says he'll beat up anyone who calls him a pedophile.  Want to start with the court system, Ritter?

So, no, I'm not highlighting that piece of crap.  Jimmy Dore was the first to bring him on and, when that happened, we stopped highlighting Jimmy Dore's YOUTUBE program.  We then stopped highlighting Richard Medhurst's program, then THE CONVO COUCH and on and on and on.

I got blocked by Tara Reade.  Now Ruth and others that got blocked Tweeted her to hold her accountable.  I never Tweeted her .

I believe her that Joe Biden assaulted her.  But I don't like her.  I know all about her.  I don't like her.  Again, I do believe she's telling the truth regarding Joe Biden and I've defended her for years.

At THE COMMON ILLS, I noted that Tara was awfully good at pretending to care about assault but that people who really care about assault do not reTweet a registered sex offender.

For that, she blocked me.  Ruth had been blocked for Tweeting to Tara to call her out.  And Tara needs to be called out for that because it goes beyond hypocrisy -- shame on you -- but I went to see what Ruth had Tweeted and that's when I found out I'd been blocked.  

It's not surprising.  We were among her strongest defenders -- both online and with the actual press (you know, the people who ignored her or called her a liar) -- and the _____ [use the term of your own choosing] never had the good manners or grace to say thank you.  She just expected everyone to help her.  That surprised me in 2020.  As I've learned more about her, it really doesn't surprise me.


Scott Ritter hates me (probably more than Tara does) because I got him shut down back in the '00s.  By pointing out -- rightly -- that shows and publications promoting Scott Ritter were responsible if he went after another girl.  Even Arianna Huffington got that.   

But creeps let him back in about two years ago.  

We stopped noting LEFT LENS because the hideous Danny Haiphong began bringing on Ritter over and over.  That was hard to do, to drop what was BLACK AGENDA REPORT's online YOUTUBE presence.  I knew Glen Ford a little and I knew Bruce Dixon very well.  But BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- as imagined by them -- would not have a YOUTUBE presence fronted by an Asian-American, nor feature episode after episode with no African-American guests.  I continued to highlight BLACK AGENDA REPORT.  Then they began running Scott Ritter's writing.

We don't highlight anymore.

And as a friend of Bruce Dixon's, let me say for the record that he wouldn't have put up with that.  For very personal reasons, he would not have allowed any registered sex offender to be published by BAR -- let alone a White man.  And I know this because we spoke about it many times during the '00s.  

THE GREY ZONE felt the need to bring on Scott Ritter?  Bye.  

And we get along without them just fine.  

I will gladly defend those in  need of defending.  I will not promote any man -- and child abusers are mainly straight and mainly men -- who is a threat to young girls.  

I don't have time for those who promote Scott Ritter -- and I certainly don't have any respect for them.  

Sy Hersh (who I've known for years)?  He tried to promote Ritter in the '00s.  End result?  THE NEW YORKER wouldn't publish him anymore.  They'd warned him.  They'd told him he was dragging the magazine's name down by promoting Ritter.  But he kept on.  And they stopped publishing him and he had to resort to THE LONDON REVIEW OF BOOKS.  

CNN, of course, banned him as a guest once they learned of Ritter's multiple arrests for seeking sex with underage girls.  

By the way, the ones promoting him today are worse than the ones in the '00s.  In the '00s, they would raise the issue of the arrests.  The ones who bring him on now don't raise that issue, don't note that he went to prison, don't note that he's a registered sex offender.  They leave all that out.  If you ask him about it, he won't do your program.  So excuse me if I no longer have respect for 'truth teller' Jimmy Dore.  Truth tellers don't go silent for registered sex offenders.

Closing with today's "Iraq snapshot:"

Negative Effects of COVID-19 Disproportionately Affect Older LGBTQ+ Adults, Says UCLA Study

How To Make Chelsea Handler Hate You On A Plane - After The Cut | The Daily Show

Samara Joy live in NYC [full concert] | Trinity Church Wall Street | Nov 8

Billionaires are ALWAYS Sellouts

Kim Fields On How 'The Upshaws' Pays Tribute To Iconic Sitcoms | The View

Friday, February 10, 2023

New generation of resistance does not fear Israel, with Abdaljawad Omar | EI Podcast

Game Night!


One of the best songs of 1990, "Criminal" (Pretenders)

 Oh. look at me

I'm addicted still At first I refused, Now I just swallow the pill Oh, baby, won't you Fix me like you used to? I could spend my time in hell I might as well Cause hell is where I'm bound to dwell Without you Oh, whoa whoa whoa
You made me Some kind of criminal You put me out-law Because I loved you

One of the best songs of 1990 -- "Criminal" by Pretenders (written by Chrissie Hynde).  First appeared on their 1990 album PACKED.  The performance above is on the live album THE ISLE OF VIEW (1995, Kat reviewed it here).  

Russiagate was a hoax w/Matt Taibbi | The Chris Hedges Report

Ralph Nader on Saving Social Security, Fighting Corporate Crime, Worker Deaths & Launching Newspaper

You People Is The Greatest Film of All Time!

The Effects of Imperialism on The LGBTQ+ Community

Chelsea's Roundtable Feat. Bob The Drag Queen, Atsuko Okatsuka & Rosebud Baker | The Daily Show

Cher - Medley (with Art Garfunkel) (The Cher Show, 05/04/1975)

Kelly Clarkson Covers 'Tennessee Whiskey' By Chris Stapleton | Kellyoke Encore


Iraq snapshot

Friday, February 10, 2023.  The US government (and Tara Reade) stay silent about the murder of Tiba al-Ali, Tara is eager to share the stage with both a registered sex offender and a man fired by FOX NEWS because he was harassing employees. 

"The police always come late if they come at all."  Tracy Chapman nailed it.  Sadly, it's true of much more than just the police.  Next month is the 20th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War (or the latest phase of an ongoing war that began in the last century).  US troops remain on the ground in Iraq to this day.  Last December, US Marine Staff Sgt Samuel D. Lecce became the most recent US service member to die in Iraq.  "Round and round it goes, where it ends, nobody knows."  That's supposed to be a slogan for roulette but it's become the US government's 'plan' for war.

AP notes:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday that the Senate will vote to repeal two decades-old measures giving open-ended approval for military action in Iraq, raising the hopes of a bipartisan group of senators who want to reclaim congressional powers over US military strikes and deployments.

The vote, which would come after consideration in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, could take place just before the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. It would repeal the 2002 measure that greenlighted that March 2003 invasion, along with a separate 1991 measure that sanctioned the US-led Gulf War to expel Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait.

“Every year we keep this authorization to use military force on the books is another chance for a future president to abuse or misuse it,” Schumer said. “War powers belong squarely in the hands of Congress, and that implies that we have a responsibility to prevent future presidents from hijacking this AUMF to bumble us into a new war.”

Igor Bobic (HUFFINGTON POST) notices the glass knocked off the table and now broken into shards on the floor and sees it as half-full -- why else would he write, "The push to repeal the 2002 Iraq War military authorization and the 1991 Gulf War authorization has steadily gained bipartisan momentum in recent years."  Grace Segers breathes a little more reality at THE NEW REPUBLIC:

Roughly 32 years ago, Congress approved its first authorization for the use of military force, or AUMF, in Iraq. Another AUMF for Iraq was approved 11 years later, in 2002, approving further action in the country after the September 11 terrorist attacks. More than two decades later, Congress is a step closer to repealing these authorizations, formally bringing the Gulf and Iraq wars to a close. True AUMF buffs know that this isn’t the first time that lawmakers have tried to repeal these measures—but a new momentum is threatening the inertia that has kept them in place. 

Staying with the US government, yesterday the US State Dept issued the following:

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Good morning, everyone.


SECRETARY BLINKEN:  It’s a great pleasure to have my longtime friend Fuad Hussein, the foreign minister of Iraq, here at the State Department in Washington.  We have worked together for many years – too many years.  But it’s always wonderful to have you here.

But this is an important moment, an important meeting.  We have a Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, but we are now focused very intensely on the economic dimension of that agreement and the work that we can do together, the United States and Iraq, to continue to strengthen Iraq’s economy, its integration, reintegration in the region, in ways that make a material difference in the lives of the Iraqi people and Iraqi citizens.

One particular focus will be on energy, on electricity.  Iraq can and should be strongly energy independent, and this is something that I think the United States and others can continue to support Iraq as it moves in that direction.

So that’s the focus of our conversations, but I would just say as well that President Biden had a very good conversation with Prime Minister Sudani just a few days ago, and we look very much forward with the prime minister to strengthening the strategic partnership that unites Iraq and the United States.


FOREIGN MINISTER HUSSEIN:  Thank you very much, and thank you, Tony.  Thank you for your friendship – personal friend, but also you are a friend of the Iraqi people.  Thank you very much for your support in the fight against ISIS.  And we worked together, we fought together, we defeated the so-called Islamic State together, and we will continue working together on the basis of building and rebuilding our economy.  And with your support, with the American companies’ support – we are in need for your support in various fields, and we will continue our cooperation.

And thank you very much for your time and for receiving us here.

SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thank you, my friend.


SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Thanks, everyone.

Iraq came up at yesterday's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Ned Price.

NED PRICE:  And finally, today the Secretary hosted the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Fuad Hussain and his delegation in the first-ever economic-focused Higher Coordinating Committee of the U.S.‑Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, reinforcing the strong relationship between our countries. The Iraqi delegation will meet with a range of U.S. officials to discuss strengthening Iraq’s economy, pursuing Iraqi energy independence, and combatting climate change. This is our first HCC since Prime Minister Sudani formed a new government, and we are looking forward to a robust discussion.

The United States supports a strong, stable, and sovereign Iraq, and we recognize the critical important of a healthy and growing economy for this end.

[. . .]

QUESTION: Thank you. As you know, the Iraqi delegation have come to talk about security relationship and politic and economy. My question is: Does the U.S. Government instead on it is demands on the Iraqi Government in terms of trade relations with the countries that are listed on your sanctions, including Iran and Russia?

MR PRICE: Our relationship with the Government of Iraq is one based on partnership. It is one based on mutual respect. It is based on our mutual interests and what works to the benefit of both of our countries. It is not our approach, whether it is the Government of Iraq or any other partner of ours, to issue demands, to issue decrees. When we engage with our Iraqi partners, we do often talk about the challenges that we confront in the region and well beyond. Many of those challenges are challenges to both of our interests. Iranian-backed forces in some cases pose a challenge to both of our interests.

So when we talk about sanctions, we don’t talk about it in terms of what we are demanding of our Iraqi partners. We talk about it in terms of what is good for both of our countries, and there is a lot that is good for both of our countries. That is the relationship of shared interests, mutual interests we have. The very fact that we have so many mutual interests allows us to have these conversations and allows us to arrive at common positions.

[. . .]

QUESTION: Thank you, Ned. Just to follow up on my colleague’s question about the Russian sanctions related to Iraq, what – I met deputy prime minister yesterday. He said that we owe the Russian companies, but the United States will not let us to pay them back because they are imposing sanction to us. Then my question is that: Are you going to waive Iraq from the Russian sanctions to pay their owes, their debts to Russian companies?

And my second question: Last week, the House Representatives Foreign Affairs chairman, he sent a letter to Secretary Blinken and said when you have a meeting with the Iraqi delegation, bring the dispute between KRG and also Baghdad into the table, because some of the disputes, they make problem for oil and gas companies to working in Kurdistan Region. Then – but I don’t hear you and Secretary Blinken to mention that. Have you touched this issue with the Iraqi delegation?

MR PRICE: So a couple of things. We’ll have more to say on the meeting, I would expect, later today. But this meeting was the first time the Higher Coordinating Committee met exclusively on economic issues. The fact is that we have a 360-degree relationship with our Iraqi partners. That means that, beyond our cooperation in the security and defense realm, we’re committed to expanding all facets of that bilateral relationship: fighting corruption, combating the climate crisis, growing the private sector, creating jobs, improving public services, expanding educational and cultural programming, establishing Iraq’s energy independence, and strengthening Iraqi sovereignty.

Now, today’s session is focusing on the economics of all of that, the climate impacts of that relationship, the energy elements of it as well. So I would expect the issues that you raise will be up for discussion. I suspect we’ll have more to say before —

QUESTION: What about disputes between —

MR PRICE: — the (inaudible). Go ahead.

QUESTION: The disputes between KRG —

MR PRICE: Let me – let me move around. I need to move to others. Yes.

Once the KRG came up, Ned rushed off to another journalist and another topic.  That's far from the only thing being ignored.

Tiba al-Ali.  Is there a reason that the US government has made a decision to ignore her murder?  Is there a reason that the press covering the State Dept and the White House can't get off their lazy asses and ask for a statement regarding the murder.

So-called 'honor' killings continue in Iraq.  And not just in Iraq.  And it's past time that the US government made a public response about this latest murder.

They're real good about starting wars, the US government, not real good about ending them (or winning them).  Maybe if they could use Tiba's murder to start a new war, they'd have something to say?

Savera UK issued the following:

Tiba al-Ali was killed by her father on January 31st, 2023, in a reported ‘honour’ killing.

The 22-year-old was in the southern province of Diwaniya when she was killed, reportedly because her father had been ‘unhappy’ about her decision to live alone in Turkey. Her death has sparked protests in Iraq, with dozens gathering on February 5th to condemn the killing. Savera UK stands with those protesting against her murder.

Afrah Qassim, Savera UK CEO and Founder, said: “Savera UK is appalled and heartbroken by the ‘honour’ killing of Tiba al-Ali at the hands of her father in Iraq. Yet we are not shocked. Each year around 5,000 people die as a result of ‘honour’-based abuse and violence. There has been a cry for justice raised worldwide for Tiba only because she was widely known as YouTube star and media personality. But we should reminded ourselves that many others lose their lives in ‘honour’ killings, and who calls for justice for them? Iraq’s penal code stipulates that killings with an ‘honourable motive’ are a mitigating circumstance for punishment. It also states that punishment for a man who kills or beats his wife, female relative or her partner (in the case of adultery) to death or causes them permanent impairment, is up to three years in prison, with the judge afforded discretionary power to reduce this punishment.

“If ‘honour’ continues to be a mitigating factor – and excuse for murder – thousands more like Tiba will die. We stand with all those calling for justice for Tiba around the world. She was a bright, 22-year-old woman with the whole of her life ahead of her. She had the right to chose to leave her family home in Iraq to live in Turkey. She had a right to live freely, happily and peacefully. But that right was taken away from her.

“There is no ‘honour’ in abuse and there is no ‘honour’ in murder.

“Justice for Tiba al-Ali. Justice for all those lost in the name of ‘honour’.”

If you are at risk of ‘honour’-based abuse or harmful practices in the UK, contact the Savera UK helpline on 0800 107 0726 (operates weekdays 10am – 4pm). 

There's a non-action coming up that's getting press attention for the pedophile they'll be putting on stage.  THE VANGUARD did a good job covering it in the video below.


An anti-war rally slated for later this month has been thrown into disarray by disagreements about a convicted child sex predator’s participation, with many speakers threatening to pull out of the Libertarian Party-led event if it booted the pedophile.

Pressure mounted internally for the Libertarian Party to disinvite Scott Ritter from the rally after the Washington Free Beacon reported about Ritter’s criminal past, which includes a 2011 prison stint for masturbating online in front of an undercover cop he believed to be an underage girl. He was arrested twice in 2001 after showing up for what he thought were meetings with 14- and 15-year-old girls. But as of this writing, Ritter's status as a featured speaker for the "Rage Against the War Machine" rally is still in limbo.

[. . .]

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a former Fox News regular who is speaking at the rally, confirmed that he stood up for Ritter in an attempt to keep him in the event. He told Libertarian Party leaders that Ritter "is intellectually honest, personally courageous, profoundly trustworthy, and utterly fearless," according to an email he shared with the Free Beacon.

"He may be the most valued and knowledgeable public person in America in the Peace Movement today," said Napolitano, who lost his job at Fox News over accusations that he "sexually harassed numerous young male employees" at the network.

Other speakers rallied in support of Ritter, including Tara Reade, a former Joe Biden aide who said the president sexually assaulted her in the 1990s.

"It would be my honor to stand with" Ritter, she tweeted, adding that "Scott is a heroic anti war voice."

The Libertarian party has long been a home for those who have questioned the role of government in regulating sex between adults and minors. Just last year a Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona named age of consent laws as something he'd move to change if elected. And in 2016 a Libertarian congressional candidate said all incidents of adults having sexual relationships with minors should be viewed on a case-by-case basis. "Hard age of consent laws don't take into account the actual maturity of the child," the candidate argued.

I told you Tara Reade was a bitch.  Some of you didn't like hearing the truth.  Doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted.  Just means she's not just an airhead, she's a really lousy person.  She pretends to support victims but apparently standing with registered sex offender Scott Ritter is her new hot thing.  Also note that the fact  Andrew Napolitano was fired from FOX NEWS for his harassment of young men.  I think Tara puts the "ME" in MeToo and honestly nothing else.  Again, she's a selfish bitch -- which is why she has that long list of former friends that she leached off of and never repaid.  Again, I believe she was assaulted.  I also believe she's a very bad person and she makes that clearer every day.  Right now, she's eager to share the stage with convicted sex offender Scott Ritter and workplace harasser Napolitano.  These are her people, please remember.

And this week, she couldn't stand with Tiba.  Of course not.  But she stood with another questionable man -- James O'Keefe.  Remember when Tara used to claim to be of the left?  She's so pathetic and her little con games always end with her exposed.

The following sites updated: