i want to instead call out some nonsnese.
i'm not linking to the idiot. but they're a tv 'critic' at a major publication. and they wrote about 'impeachment' yesterday. they insisted that it didn't need to be made.
why?
because tt was the same story that monica lewinsky told 'vanity fair' in 2014.
and?
i lived through it.
the story needed to be told.
mainly because times have changed and we need to look at this whole thing with new eyes.
but equally true, they made monica out to be cray.
hillary has no higher ground. they used her whole tear the accuser apart strategy - the 1 that they had used on the women before. and they painted monica as a predator and as a stalker and as crazy and as a liar.
the press went along with it.
monica was just some crazy intern who developed a crush on bill clinton and created a fantasy that she was too sick to tell from reality.
so stop lying for the clintons.
that was what they said and they said it on camera and said it repeatedly.
so monica told her story in 2014 to 'vanity fair.' wo what?
how many people read 'vainity fair.' so much fewer than heard the lies over and over that the clintons told the media. they kept insisting that monica was lying. and she was part of a 'vast right wing conspiracy.' that's what hillary said on 'the today show.'
the idiots at 'wsws' were pimping that as the only true thing hillary ever said. which left ava and c.i. to serve up reality ('TV: Can we Impeach WSWS?'):
Did we really need IMPEACHMENT?
It covers a period of lying -- lying by Bill, lying by the media. And it's still about lying.
Doubt us? Patrick actually types the following:
Contrary to moralizing critics at the time, like the disgusting Senator Joe Lieberman, and more recent #MeToo advocates, like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the mini-series treats Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky in a mature and apparently honest way. Lewinsky was infatuated with him. Clinton, presented as lonely and isolated, was moved by her enthusiasm, and a relationship began. It was, to be blunt, a relationship between two consenting adults. It is not portrayed as exploitative or based on Clinton’s power over Lewinsky as her employer -- here Lewinsky’s role as a co-producer and contributor to Impeachment adds weight.
It's not a consenting relationship. It's a very powerful man, the most powerful man in the world, lying to a young woman. It's amazing what Patrick Martin's revealing about himself in the paragraph we just quoted. He only watched the first three episodes but in those episodes you see Bill lie to Monica repeatedly. You see him hustle her out of the White House. You see her believe the lie that he'll bring her back. You see her wait and wait by the phone. You see him use her over and over.
Patrick deems that abusive relationship to be a "consenting" one. We're really worried -- both about his mental health and about his own personal relationships.
His outlet being WSWS, facts never matter -- which is how we get this:
In probably her last public statement that was entirely truthful, Hillary Clinton denounced the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to force her husband out of office—Toobin took the title of his book from this comment, and he clearly agrees with it.
Her statement wasn't at all truthful. She made it on THE TODAY SHOW. She was referring to Monica Lewinsky. She was stating that the rumor of an affair was all "a vast right-wing conspiracy." We know that because we try to nail down the facts and we did so, going to the original transcript of that interview, when we wrote about why we believed Juanita Broaddrick's accusation of rape against Bill Clinton.
That was a few years back and we could provide a link but then we'd be guilty of what we find most offensive about WSWS' 'review' of IMPEACHMENT.
It's got nothing to do with IMPEACHMENT. It's got everything to do with them linking to a bunch of articles that they wrote years ago and trying to pretend like they did something that matters.
Did something that matters? They can't even review accurately. And if there was a reason to do IMPEACHMENT this season, it was to take a fresh look at those late 90s events. That Patrick saw it as an excuse to link to 14 WSWS articles from 1998 says everything you need to know about WSWS. In 21 years, per WSWS, nothing has happened to add meaning or context, nothing has changed, nothing has evolved. Humanity is at a fixed point and never progresses, if you believe their argument. What's really strange is that they give lip service to Socialism, they just never manage to actually practice it at WSWS. Maybe Ryan Murphy could make that the subject of next year's AMERICAN CRIME STORY?
so, yes, we need to hear monica's story.
and, by the way, bill does owe her an apology. he lied about her, he defamed her and he led her on. he abused his position of power. he needs to apologize to her.
mercy e-mailed to note 'alpha bayton.'
let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'
Wednesday, November 11, 2021. We focus on a number of topics, including the October 10th election. But the main point is probably: If you want to stop people from questioning a narrative you're trying to sell, maybe don't deploy your well known CIA stenographer.
Starting with? The CIA's chief scribe has spoken and that's supposed to be 'end of story.' They should have chosen a better scribe who takes their dictation. Here's the garbage:
Even by the brutal political rules of Baghdad, the recent attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi appears to have shocked many Iraqis — and undermined the Iranian-sponsored militias who had been trying to drive him from power.
The implications of the Baghdad drone attack were summarized in an email from Randa Slim, director of conflict resolution at the Middle East Institute. “There is enough circumstantial evidence pointing to Iran-backed Iraqi militias having orchestrated this attack. But it already backfired on them. It was a stupid and shortsighted move that achieved the exact opposite of their objective to deny Prime Minister Kadhimi a second term. This assassination attempt made his second term in office almost certain.”
That distortion of fact and reality courtesy of David Ignatius, longterm stenographer for the CIA.
Years ago, five? ten?, it was said of David, by a reporter at THE WASHINGTON POST, "He's such a good whore that his well worn floppy requires a drawstring to close." Indeed.
Did the drone attack turn people away from the militias?
No. David, you stupid whore. Did they not use lube this time? Did that make you work less hard at spinning for them? I have no idea. But the reason the militias did poorly in the voting -- which took place weeks before the drone attack last Saturday -- was two-fold. One, they were disenfranchised and not allowed to vote -- a large number of them. (They were prevented from early voting despite the fact that on election day they would be required to be at polling places. They were the only part of the Iraqi security forces who were disenfranchised. And, yes, they are an official part of the security forces. Something I long objected to while David, voice of the CIA, remained silent because the CIA backed bringing the militias in. They thought, originally, it would put them under control. It did nothing of the sort. Wow, the CIA got it wrong. That would be news . . . if it wasn't pretty much always the outcome. Maybe they should stop trying to offer predictions? If not, just outsource the work to some online psychic.)
What turned people against the militias? The violence aimed at the Iraqi people -- especially members of The October Revolution (the protest movement that started in the fall of 2019). The fact that Iraq and Iran share a border and will always squabble -- over water rights, border lines, etc. The fact that the two have had armed conflict in the past and that isn't forgotten (on either side of the border). The fact that the Iraqi people want a national identity -- made clear in the 2010 elections (the ones Joe Biden and the US government overturned with The Erbil Agreement). The simple fact that no one wants some other country ordering them around.
The drone attack has not let to an outcry on the part of the Iraqi people.
Most don't care.
Some who don't care see the whole thing as a stunt and believe that the US government staged it.
You'll note (a) David treis to speak for the Iraqi people but doesn't quote one, no note even one.
Randa Slim? Maybe she, the person David does quote, looks "Iraqi" to David?
To the rest of the world, she's a Lebanese American.
So why are you quoting her when you present as representing what the Iraqi people are saying.
Oh, if whorese were bound by reality, they'd never get paid, right?
David knows the big thing is: Get the money upfront.
And let's hope he did because this column was a huge mistake.
I have no idea what happened last Saturday or who the target was (it may have been Mustafa) or who launched the attack. But as we noted Saturday night (it was Saturday night in the US when the attack took place but it was already Sunday in Iraq), there was a huge pushback on social media from Iraqis.
They didn't take it as a real attack. Large numbers were expressing the belief that this was a plan carried out by the US government to try to force Mustafa off on the Iraqi people.
So when David -- with his well known and longterm ties to the CIA -- publishes the column he did? He feeds into these beliefs. They can say, "We thought it was a CIA operation and look, here's the American pig who is the voice of the CIA and he's twisting reality."
Because David is twisting reality. He's lucky that so few in the US pay attention to Iraq. Or they'd realize that his claim that an alleged assassination attempt wasn't going to change the Iraqi people's feelings towards the miliitas (most are opposed) or towards the inept Mustafa al-Kahdimi.
And we need to point out something. I am disclosed as anti-militia and have been forever. I opposed them being brought into the government forces. Sometimes I short hand and assume most people are already aware of certain things because we have covered them over and over.
But beyond the natural conflict between Iraq and Iran, we do need to note another issue.
Sawha. Sons (Daughters) Of Iraq. Awakenings.
Ring a bell?
Sunnis militias.
I didn't support those either and for the same reason that the Iraqi people didn't support them -- they don't want militias. The Sunni militias were not linked to Iran.
The core issue is that people don't like miliitias.
I remember when we had to call out reporters regularly as they sold SOI as beloved by the Iraqi people.
No, that was never reality.
Had it been, Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have gotten away with not paying them.
The US government created tehm -- using elements of the Sunni mafia, let's be honest. Individuals already in organized crime who often used the cement industry in Iraq as their front.
They were never popular with the Iraqi people despite the lies told by various US newspapers.
And the US government needed them to be popular because they were using the American people's money to pay them.
When that little tidbit emerged, Senator Barbara Boxer managed to force the issue of payment off to the Iraqi government (she did that in an April 2008 hearing -- one David never covered but when the CIA briefs you, I guess you don't need to attend hearings). Nouri had to say that he'd pay. He didnt't have a choice. The US Congress loathed the 'leader' that the CIA had backed. (The CIA assessment on Nouri al-Maliki was that his paranoia was so extreme, it would be easy for the US government to play to it and manipulate him. In other words, they put a mad dog in charge and then kicked the dog and threw stones at him and when he unleashed on the Iraqi people, that same US government looked the other way.)
Militias are never popular when you have a standing government. They were never going to be controlled by the Iraqi government and the stupidity on the part of the CIA really needs to be called out.
Did the CIA have a hand in Saturday's events?
I have no idea.
But it is what a large number of Iraqi people on social media believe.
So it wasn't a good thing for the CIA to deploy their known whore David Ignatius. They will notice. And not just because I know this will be reposted -- this part of the snapshot if not the full thing -- by two Iraqi papers. (And that's fine. I've never had a problem with that. This is their story, any of their outlets can use the writing here and many have.)
David's an old whore and the CIA should probably move on to someone younger. Someone a little more fresh. And someone with a lot less baggage.
David's attachment will only confirm the belief of some Iraqis that the attack or 'attack' was a US plot to try to force Mustafa down their throats.
They don't want them.
And, here's the thing, Mustafa isn't direct in line for a second term. And most people paying attention are aware of that. So David just looks like a paid liar around the world.
Mustafa did not stand for election. He thought he was popular but he wasn't The US government -- Joe Biden -- promised him he had their full backing (ask Ayad Allawi how that worked out when then-President Barack Obama made the same promise).
Is Moqtada al-Sadr a "king maker." He might end up one, he might not. There was nothing to argue strongly that he was, nothing in the record. But didn't the press, the western press, insist he was.
Moqtada is on the US payroll. The August bribe to get him to support the elections wasn't the only time the US government has paid Moqtada. And that goes a long way towards explaining why the western press has gone out of their way to promote Moqtada.
But the narrative they've presented has insisted Moqtada will decide who is prime minister.
It overlooked reality -- 73 seats is not a lot of seats and is not the necessary amount to form a government, for example. The reality of Moqtada's skill was also overlooked. We pointed out that he did not have the political or diplomatic skills to be deemed a king maker at present.
All this time later and he still can't pull together a coalition.
But Nouri? Thug Nouri is pulling together support. It is the story the western press continues to ignore.
Mustafa was named prime minister in May of 2020 and he was supposed to be a one-term prime minister. He got greedy and wanted more. The Iraqi people, seeing his incompetence, doesn't want more.
Let's note a Tweet about Nouri.
And another.
يمكنكم أن تطلب من نوري المالكي تفاصيل حول اغتيال الكاظمي ، لأنه على دراية كاملة بها..
You can ask Nouri al-Maliki for details about the assassination of al-Kadhimi, because he is fully aware of it..۰
#اغتيال_الكاظمي
Does Nouri know who's responsible? Is Nouri himself responsible?
These are conversations taking place and they are conversation that Iraq 'expert' David is completely unwilling to acknowledge.
Paid whore.
And anyone paying attention can see it.
The US government ought to spend the taxpayer money better. But they don't, as noted below:
So they paid off thug Recep? No real surprise. Come to the US and, on American soil, order your bodyguards to assault Americans and Joe Biden and company are fine with that. Their only question is: Recep, how much do you need? And then they use tax power money to pay off a despot who is carrying out a genocide on the Kurdish people.
Where's the final tally on the votes?
Iraqis voted October 10th. It's a month later. Where's the final tally?
The following sites updated:
-
Raye Zaragoza: Tiny Desk (Home) Concert3 hours ago
-
-
-
-
Grab bag11 hours ago
-
-
Gaige Grosskreutz belongs behind bars11 hours ago
-
-
-
Blame it on me11 hours ago
-
Labor and music11 hours ago
-
Dean Stockwell11 hours ago
-
-
-
-
How I Made It: Ayodele Casel1 day ago
