I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
I will also not vote for Jill Stein -- in fact, I rate Ms. Clinton higher than Ms. Stein who is Hillary with less brain.
I will not vote for any of the Republicans -- not even Rand Paul.
Bernie Sanders is a joke -- and a dirty one.
I would consider voting for Martin O'Malley, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or maybe even Jim Webb.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Fake Ass Bernie Sanders, the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee when the story that the VA was keeping two sets of books on appointments -- one (the false one) showing they were meeting the deadlines and the hidden one (the real one) showing they weren't. How did Bernie respond to this scandal -- which resulted in the death of veterans waiting for care?
By insisting at a hearing as the story broke that the scandal not be talked about because acupuncture was a much more important topic than the VA lying and veterans dying.
He then shamelessly whored for the VA. So bad did he whore for them that he was called out on air during a CNN interview.
That's fake ass Bernie for you.
The US senator who couldn't call out then-VA Secretary Eric Shinseki -- despite Shinseki's non-stop failures.
Today, Fake and Shake Sanders took the floor of the Senate to denounce those opposed to the Iran deal US President Barack Obama is forcing down the throats of Americans.
Those who have spoken out against the Iran agreement, including many in this chamber, and those who have made every effort to thwart the diplomatic process, are many of the same people who spoke out forcefully and irresponsible about the need to go to war with Iraq, one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the modern history of our country.
First off, it's English, it's basic, learn it if you're going to be a public speaker. "The same people who spoke out forcefully and irresponsible about . . ." That would be forcefully and irresponsibly -- those are the words you use, even if you're an elderly idiot suffering from old man stink.
Second, go to war with Iraq?
With?
What opponent of the Iraq War says "with" Iraq?
Check the archives, we say war "on" Iraq.
We say that often.
Only the imperialists lie and say "with."
But then, that is what Bernie is. He's no peace activist. He's not really called out war and has frequently voted for it.
What's smelling up the room is wafting off Bernie and it's not just his old man stink, it's also his hypocrisy.
People can be opposed to the deal and not be supporting war.
Equally true, the deal doesn't mean no war.
That lie's been pimped to shut down discussion.
The Yalta Conference was diplomatic and going to solve everything, right?
Then how the hell did the Cold War follow that?
The 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which resulted in the League of Nations, was going to bring about peace as well, right?
Peace didn't come, did it?
And the League of Nations is a laughable relic of the past.
The reality is that leaders of major countries bring war.
They don't bring peace.
The people may bring peace.
Usually, it's the people who struggle for peace after the war is declared by the leaders -- who lie, all of them lie, I.F. Stone had it right and when your wet dream Barack is out of office, suddenly, so many leftists will remember that -- too late -- but always the fool, always the whore for some lying politician.
The Iran deal does not promise peace.
It promises war as the history of any US treaty demonstrates going back to the various treaties with the Native Americans.
You have to be a real two-bit whore for Barack, one who can't keep your hands off out of your pants in public, to pimp the lie that some new contract -- with conditions for Iran (there's no conditions for the US, idiots, read the damn thing) will result in peace.
There's penalizations for Iran, there's this for Iran, there's that for Iran.
Most likely, the contract will be used by those lying politicians to start a war on Iran -- or "with" to use liar Bernie Sanders' term.
Barack has lied -- and some idiots bought it instead of calling him out for fear mongering -- that if the deal/treaty does not pass, there will be war.
He fear mongers and he lies just like Bully Boy Bush.
Jim Webb, who is running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, was against the Iraq War and is against the Iran deal.
It can happen.
Many Democrats in Congress who were for the Iraq War are now supporting the deal.
Hillary Clinton, also running for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, most closely resembles the TV character Fonzie from Happy Days -- for those who've forgotten, Fonzie struggle to say he was wrong just like Hillary.
Hillary voted for war on Iraq in 2002. Today, she favors the deal.
All that really demonstrates is that the spineless do whatever they're pressured to do.
There are some good things in the deal but clearly not enough.
Were the deal solid, the President of the United States would not repeatedly insult his opponents on the deal with immature remarks so embarrassing that the White House spokesperson had to walk them back.
Were the deal solid enough, the myth that opponents are just neocons who supported the Iraq War would not still be being used as a 'logical' argument for the deal.
The deal's never been fought on its own merits because the whores in Congress and the whores in punditry can't argue for the deal.
We've not take a stand for or against the deal.
My job is not to whore for the White House -- regardless of what idiot being elevated to the rank of modern day Jesus temporarily occupies the White House.
Any statement by a member of Congress opposing the deal that's been mailed to the public e-mail account has been posted at this site.
Some have been thoughtful and shown real exploration.
None of the response has been the same.
David Brock is the cancer on the left.
In the 90s, as he lied and bullied, we knew (on the left) his actions were wrong.
But we elevated the little whore because he told us the right was mean (after he could no longer advance further on the right because he was a closeted gay man whose hags -- Ann Coulter, etc -- would only tolerate so much from him).
And then we decided the David Brock playbook was the way to go.
And we've lost whatever ethics we had in the process.
In February 2003, I began speaking out against the Iraq War publicly (it would start in March).
Any of us who did can tell you the problem was that we were shut out of the debate, that points we made were ignored, that the 'argument' for the illegal war was shut-up-and-go-along-with-what-we-say, etc.
The Iraq War deserved debate and exploration before it started.
That didn't take place.
War Hawks (chiefly on the right but also on the center-left) and corporations saw to it that the discussion would be shut down.
Today, the Iran deal proponents act in the same manner and think that's a good thing.
Apparently, in a democracy, we don't need debate when you want your side to win.
Thing is, that's not a democratic principle.
Thing is the smear tactics Bernie Sanders used on the floor of the Senate today do not argue for an agreement, do not argue for an informed public and do not do a damn thing to help democracy thrive.
He should be ashamed of himself.
And his supporters can continue to ignore his problems -- his inability to get anything passed in Congress throughout his career, his refusal to apologize for his published remarks on rape (Hillary's difficulties with apologies are regularly explored in the media but rape defender Bernie got away with dismissing the issue -- because rape is so unimportant?), his troublesome interactions with people of color (which mainly find Bernie trying to speak over activists of color), etc.
But they're fools when they take Bernie as a peace activist.
His voting record shows he's not.
Asked recently by Martha Raddatz about his failure to present foreign policy objectives, he whined that he'd only been campaigning for three months.
He's been in Congress for how long now?
Since 1991.
He's silent because he's your basic pro-war Congress member. He's silent because he's never spoken out for the rights of the Palestinian people.
He's silent because he's a fake and fraud.
Today, Bernie pretended yet again to care about Iraq.
And yapping whores echo him and pretend to care about Iraq as well.
The reform campaign announced last month
by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi represents a potential turning point
for Iraq. Indeed, the outcome of this campaign will shape the future of a
country central to the global fight against the Islamic State and to
the stabilization of the Middle East. The United States must focus on
Iraq’s newest struggle and assist Abadi’s reform effort.
Abadi is rushing his reforms because of pressure from a nonsectarian movement, which includes many civil society groups, that has taken to the streets for several weeks. The role of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who encouraged Abadi to be courageous and embrace reform, has been critical. Abadi’s reforms include fighting corruption and establishing a meritocracy in government employment in place of party patronage and sectarianism. The protesters also want national reconciliation and reform of the judiciary, including the replacement of top judge Midhat al-Mahmoud, who was a key enabler of the unconstitutional actions by Abadi’s predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki.
That garbage was written by Zalmay Khalilzad and published by the Washington Post this evening online.
When has Bernie ever denounced Khalilzad?
The man was calling for war on Iraq -- publicly calling for it -- as far back as 1998. He's been a tool of war and Big Oil (which so often goes hand-in-hand).
When's Bernie been worried about Khalilzad?
It's hard to know how to responds to Khalizad's crap.
"The unconstitutional actions by Abadi's predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki"?
I'm sorry are we all supposed to read that and forget (a) that Khalilzad argued for Nouri to be made prime minister in 2006 and (b) that the Bully Boy Bush White House had Khalilzad float the idea to Nouri to be sure he wanted it before the White House installed Nouri as prime minister?'
Nouri is and was a thug.
I say that here all the time.
But if I'd elevated Nouri to the post of prime minister, I'd also be saying, "Boy, was I wrong to have supported Nouri."
Khalilzad never says that, never takes accountability.
He's a member of PNAC and yet he thinks he should be listened to?
And when he has a space, he offers:
The reform campaign announced last month by
Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi represents a potential turning point for
Iraq. Indeed, the outcome of this campaign will shape the future of a
country central to the global fight against the Islamic State and to the
stabilization of the Middle East. The United States must focus on
Iraq’s newest struggle and assist Abadi’s reform effort.
Abadi is rushing his reforms because of pressure from a nonsectarian movement, which includes many civil society groups, that has taken to the streets for several weeks. The role of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who encouraged Abadi to be courageous and embrace reform, has been critical. Abadi’s reforms include fighting corruption and establishing a meritocracy in government employment in place of party patronage and sectarianism. The protesters also want national reconciliation and reform of the judiciary, including the replacement of top judge Midhat al-Mahmoud, who was a key enabler of the unconstitutional actions by Abadi’s predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki.
The reform campaign is a turning point?
By what measure?
By the lies Khalilzad tells?
He's a damn liar, he's been a damn liar on Iraq from the beginning.
The 'reforms' -- if they ever take place -- do not address Sunni grievances.
They do, however, favor all the items on Nouri's wish list when he was prime minister.
And Reuters notes today, "Others have criticized the lack of change the reforms have so far provided for everyday citizens."
Barack Obama, June 14, 2014, noted the only solution to the crises was a political solution.
The 'reforms' are not a political solution.
They may or may not be helpful but they don't address the root problems.
They don't address the imprisonment of Sunnis on no charges (other than being related to a suspect).
They don't address the abuse and rape of Sunni girls and women in Iraqi prisons and jails.
They don't address the 'disappeared.'
But has Khalilzad ever addressed Sunni concerns?
No.
Arriving in Iraq in June of 2005, he infamously made comments attacking Sunni elements and vowing to "crush" the insurgency which he saw as Sunni Ba'athists and foreigners.
(No, nothing has changed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. Not one damn thing.)
From the start, he has lied repeatedly.
Now he tries to harness a protest movement to back up his own desires.
He leaves out the Iraqi heat which forced the protests as people took to the streets demanding dependable electricity.
He leaves out everything while pretending he's offering an honest assessment.
Unocal may have tolerated his lies and distortions but that's no reason for the world to.
In some of today's violence, Alsumaria reports 2 corpses were discovered outside Baghdad (one to the north, one to the west) while Xinhua repeats a claim, "Islamic State (IS) militants have kidnapped 127 children in IS-held Iraqi city of Mosul recently to train them in the ranks of the terror group, Iraqi News reported on Tuesday."
e Tim Arango (New York Times) covers the refugee crisis:
After years of violence and unmet promises for democracy by a corrupt political elite, Iraqis who resisted leaving during previous crises are now embarking on the country’s next great wave of emigration, an exodus that leaders warn is further tearing at the country at a time when its unity, more than ever, is threatened by the militants of the Islamic State.
The greatest threat to Iraq's unity has always been its government (followed by the US government). Iraqis sought a national identity, for example, as the 2009 and 2010 election results underscored. But it was US President Barack Obama who overturned the 2010 results to give Nouri al-Maliki a second term. And it was Nouri's second term that further shattered the country.
Haider al-Abadi has now had over a year to prove he was different from Nouri al-Maliki; however, his term as prime minister has yet to deliver on basic promises.
(And the laughable column with his name on it in today's Wall St. Journal will probably be about as helpful as the phone call with US Vice President Joe Biden was last night.)
In response to the refugee crisis, who's doing what?
The Guardian notes Tony Abbott, prime minister of Australia, declared this morning that Australia will take in 12,000 refugees -- though it appears these will only be Syrian refugees. With regards to Iraq? BBC News reports:
Australia will also give A$44m ($32m; £21m) to the UN to directly pay for the support of 240,000 displaced people in countries neighbouring Syria and Iraq.
That would increase Australia's total humanitarian aid to the Syria and Iraq conflicts to A$230m since 2011, Mr Abbott said
The refugee crisis means little to the State Dept or the press that covers the State Dept as evidenced by today's press conference which ignored the topic and failed to ask spokesperson John Kirby what the US would be doing?
They did, however, make time to ask if the Turkish government told the US government about the latest round of bombings of Iraq before Turkish war planes began dropping them?
No one present bothered to ask if the Iraqi government had been notified.
