Ruth's Report: Realities from Ted Rall

Ted Rall (COUNTERPUNCH) offers:

Far too many lefties still can’t believe that the Orange One won the election, or that as president he’s so stupid and mean and right-wing.
Know the cliché, “if you’re not angry you’re not paying attention”? If you didn’t see Trump’s victory coming, you weren’t paying attention to the anger of your fellow citizens — and neither was the Democratic Party. NAFTA cost a million Americans their jobs. Since the 1970s automation has put 7 million people out of work. Democrats marketed themselves as the party of Joe and Jane Sixpack, but Bill Clinton pushed for and signed NAFTA, a Republican idea. Neither Clinton nor Obama lifted a finger to save the Rust Belt; as a candidate Hillary Clinton didn’t care either.
For those who opened their eyes to see, every aspect of Trump’s “surprise” win was visible in plain sight.
2016’s Rust Belt Trumpers were yesteryear’s Reagan Democrats and the “angry white males” of the 1990s.
Democratic disunity was another big factor. But the schism between Hillary Clinton corporate Democrats and Bernie Sanders progressives directly paralleled the 1980 split between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy.

It is an interesting article.

Give it a read, you will probably find something to agree with.

Like this:

Stupid progressive thing #2: viewing Trump’s politics as significantly more dangerous or extreme than, say, Obama’s.
Worried that Trump will pull a Greg Stillson (“the missiles are flying”) on North Korea? Me too. But please get real. Trump’s needlessly bellicose rhetoric and gleeful overuse of the war machine hardly represent a radical shift in foreign policy from his predecessors. Obama gleefully ordered a political assassination (Osama bin Laden), financed civil wars that destroyed Libya and Syria, slaughtered thousands of civilians with drones and joked about it. All Trump did was alter the tone of U.S. propaganda from fake they-made-me-do-it to his more honest I-like-it.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Wednesday, August 30, 2017.

XINHUA reports, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Tuesday rejected the relocation of around 700 Islamic State (IS) militants and their families to the Syrian eastern city of Bukamal near the border with Iraq." ALJAZEERA adds:

Haider al-Abadi, Iraq's prime minister, said on that Tuesday the deal was "unacceptable" and an "insult to the Iraqi people".
He said Iraq was battling the fighters, not sending them to Syria.

If the point was to drive the Islamic State out of Iraq, Hayder's whining that some are being bussed is rather strange.

Before the operation to 'liberate' Tal Afar began, Hayder issued his usual cry of leave now or we will kill you. (By the way, ALJAZEERA notes, "Abadi has said Iraqi forces expected to announce victory in the city of Tal Afar within days.")

Leave or we kill you.

Now he's upset that they're leaving?

Also weighing in?

US Special Envoy Brett McGurk.

‏Verified account @brett_mcgurk

Our @coalition will help ensure that these terrorists can never enter #Iraq or escape from what remains of their dwindling "caliphate." 2/2

22 replies74 retweets103 likes

‏Verified account @brett_mcgurk

Irreconcilable #ISIS terrorists should be killed on the battlefield, not bused across #Syria to the Iraqi border without #Iraq's consent 1/2

55 replies134 retweets160 likes

Oh, Brett, pretty fades.

What will you do when it's gone?

How exactly, Brett, do you determine the "irreconilable" terrorists. As opposed to, what I presume, would be the contrasting "dabbling" terrorists?

More to the point, the US government has repeatedly killed "terrorists" who turn out to be innocent civilians. So maybe guilt is better left to a court of law, Brett?

As for the US "ensur[ing] that terrorists can never enter #Iraq"?

I think Brett might need to try selling that to the American people because right now, they're not buying.

Right now, they're damn tired of 14 years of war in the latest wave of war on Iraq.

Right now, they damn sick of the fact that a trillion has been spent on this action and the cost is still increasing.

Right now, they're confused by their own government's refusal to provide Medicare for all when the US government did that for the Iraqi people when they wrote the 2005 constitution for Iraq.

Right now, as US cities crumble and there is no money to fix roads and highways and there is no money to increase the budgets for schools or libraries.

Why is it on the US to (pretend) to protect Iraq's borders?

That should be on Iraq.

I know they can't.

The Islamic States ascendancy proved that.

But a puppet government will never have mass support from the people.

So apparently, to keep the puppet government in place, the US will have to remain in Iraq for years to come.

And that is what Brett's Tweet is really saying.

Yes, indeed, Brett's really saying something.

And the American people should know what he's committing them to.

His Tweets should be front page, top of the hour news.

I seriously doubt, however, that what passes for media in this country will take the time to inform We The People.

Back to the parenthetical on Tal Afar, NRT and REUTERS note that Hayder held a press conference on Tuesday where he announced that they would soon declare victory in Tal Afar.

However, FRANCE 24 has an interview (link is video and text) with spokesperson and cheerleader for the US-led coalition Ryan Dillon where he dubs the operation "decisive" and refers to it in past tense.

Who is right -- Hayder or head cheerleader Ryan?

‏Verified account @BBCWorld

Iraqi troops face fierce IS resistance near Tal Afar 

28 replies44 retweets78 likes

Maybe Ryan should have just stuck to doing the splits?

In other news, Kirkuk's joining the KRG in the planned September 25 referendum.

ADDED: The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, PACIFICA EVENING NEWS, BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- updated: