the mommie dearest diary: carol ann tells all

we're doing kindle books this year.  if the deal's still on, you can get kindle unlimited on a two month trial at amazon and then it's like ten bucks a month after that.  we'll be noting books on kindle unlimited.  i'm kicking off with rutanya alda's book 'the mommie dearest diary: carol ann tells all.'  

rutanya alda is an actress who played carol ann in the film 'mommie dearest' and her book is about the filming of that movie.

it's a lively book which is based on the journal she kept during the filming of the movie.

faye dunaway was a nightmare.  she demanded that no 1 look at her when she was on the set - other actors had to turn their backs.  she also demanded the set be a closed set (no visitors without her approval - that included a relative of rutanya alda's who was visiting).  the director - frank perry - was worried that she'd have a fit if any 1 looked better than her.  she couldn't get along with the hairdresser, she couldn't get along with the wardrobe head (irene sharaff).  she would constantly steal moments or get rutanya's blocking or camera angle changed so that the scene emphasized her.  

we learn that the people she worked with thought faye was 1 of the all time worsts - up there with, according to them, liza minnelli, lauren bacall and barbra streisand.  remember sharaff?  not noted in the book, she worked with barbra on 'hello dolly.'  i'm sure she's 1 of the unnamed people who put faye on that list. 

you also learn about others.  the woman who was a friend of jane fonda's and gave her pulses of electricity in the face to make jane look younger was also a double for jane on movie sets and when she gets injured on the set of a fonda film and files with workers comp, jane drops her as a friend out of anger.

is it a true story?

you could argue it's rutanya's true story - her opinion as it happened.

you could argue that but i don't believe it.  

diana scarwid is the reason.  rutanya goes after her in the supposed journal she's quoting from but at the end of the book - not part of the journal - rutanya's acting like none of it happened and diana's wonderful and blah blah blah.

rutanya was dealing with her drug addict husband at the same time and i'm supposed to believe that those journal entries are real when she's talking about him?

she'd have to be a saint to have written in her journal what her book pretends she wrote about her drug addict husband and i don't believe the bulk of the 'quotes' 'from the journal' that she includes.  no 1's that much of a saint.  he's not helping her with the film, he's drugged out all the time, he can't even pick her up or meet her on time and he's spending her per diem on drugs over and over?  no, she'd be writing much more colorful passages about him in her diary.

i'm sure faye is a diva.  i'm sure many people working on the film didn't like her.  it's not her job to be liked.  it's her job to deliver a performance.  as an actress, rutanya could have written about that and what the lengths faye went to achieved for the art and what it cost those working with her.

instead, rutanya writes like some 1 who doesn't know a thing about acting and never saw the completed film.  

it's a page turner in the diary section but i don't how reliable it is.  i'd recommend the book but recommend you took it as 1 (limited) view.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

 Friday, January 8, 2021.  Where is the perspective?

[Impeachment discussion has been added to the bottom of this snapshot.]

Thomas Newdick (THE DRIVE) reports:

A total of 23 Iraqi Air Force Lockheed Martin F-16IQ Viper fighter jets took part in an impressive flyby to mark the centenary of the country’s army yesterday. This is despite recent reports that Baghdad’s fleet of F-16s, the pride of the country’s air force and arguably its most capable combat assets, is suffering from serious readiness problems.

The flyby was part of a major military parade to commemorate 100 years of the Iraqi Army that was staged in Baghdad in the presence of the commander-in-chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces, Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kazemi. As well as fighters and helicopters, troops, and various military vehicles were presented to the country’s officials and the general public. A full video of the event is posted later in this article.

Readiness problems?  

The first round of F16s were sent to Iraq by the US back in July of 2015.  Over five years ago.  In 2006, US service members were complaining to the press (AP and others) that the Iraqis they were training did not seem motivated to learn.  Prior to the 2011 drawdown, control over the US goals in Iraq were transferred from the Defense Dept to the State Dept.  And that's when Iraq made it clear that they did not want US training -- after US tax payers footed the bill for construction of a building for US troops to train the Iraqi police (that building would later be turned over to the Iraqi government -- after it was never used for its purpose).   Let's drop back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot:

We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program?  Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter disdain for the program.  When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue."  The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete?  Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it."  She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government.  But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name.  That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States."  He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.

Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed.  The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?

Security and strategic concerns were raised on Tuesday after Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kazemi said most US troops would leave the country in the coming days.

“Iraq has turned into an arena for liquidations and the challenges of global and regional wars on its soil,” the prime minister said during a speech on the occasion of the nation’s Army Day.

More than half of American forces will leave Iraq, the fruit of continuous strategic dialogue with the United States, while only hundreds of them will remain, to continue cooperation in the fields of training, rehabilitation and technical support, Kazemi said.

Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) spokesman Wayne Marotto told Rudaw in December that the US would be drawing down its Coalition troops to 2,500 by January 15. The decision to scale-down was first announced by Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller in mid-November." 

For over a year, Iraqis have been protesting the corruption in Iraq.  Samara Abramson and Sofia Nitti (India's BUSINESS INSIDER) note:

For the past year, young Iraqis have been protesting in the streets.

They are demanding civil rights, a solution to record-high unemployment, and an end to government corruption. The protesters are mostly under the age of 30, and for many of them, the future looks bleak.

"People will not fear," said Ali Riyadh, a 27-year-old protester. "They don't have the [sense of fear]. They can't be scared from anything anymore."

[. . .]

The average Iraqi is only 20 years old - very young, compared with 38 in the United States and 31 in neighboring Turkey. But they don't have much to look forward to in a country where the poverty rate could double this year and reach 40%. About a fourth of Iraqis between the ages of 15 and 24 don't have jobs.

The protests led to the resignation of a prime minister and Mustafa becoming prime minister May 7th of last year with the promise of early elections.  The date for those elections has been given as June 6th.  Ramadan Al Sherbini (GULF NEWS) reports:

 Iraq will open registration starting from Saturday for standing in early parliamentary polls slated for June amid doubts that the vote will take place as scheduled.

Last July, Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Kadhim set the polls for June 6 2021, meeting a key demand for street protesters, who forced his predecessor Adel Abdul Mahdi to resign.

An independent electoral commission said Friday that it will open registration for political parties and alliances wishing to run in the upcoming elections. The registration will continue for a week ending on January 16.

This registration (for candidates) will start despite the fact that Parliament has still not passed the needed election law for elections to be held June 6th.  Dilan Sirwan (RUDAW) notes:

The electoral commission said in August it would be ready to hold early elections in June provided the government and parliament meet certain demands, including passing a new electoral law and allocating a budget for the vote.

Iraqi President Barham Salih in November officially signed electoral reforms into law, dividing provinces into smaller voting constituencies for the 2021 election.

The Independent High Electoral Commission announced on Wednesday that election registration for the political parties and alliances for the early elections will take place until January 16. The deadline for parties to submit lists of candidates is January 28.

Now to the US and high drama.  Lee Michael Katz (ARIZONA CENTRAL) trembles with heaving bosom:

I've seen state-sponsored rallies in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, reported from inside the Kremlin in Moscow and been followed by secret police in leather jackets in the Assad family's Syria. But I always smugly thought I lived in a functioning American democracy until Wednesday's scene of Donald Trump-inspired violent chaos at the United States Capitol.

Trump and his minions have been screaming for years about the failure to prevent the horrors of the Benghazi mob attacks on American officials in faraway Libya. Now, these same so-called “patriots” seemed bent on recreating a lawless atmosphere, endangering lawmakers and disrupting the peaceful transition of power.

Riled up by Trump, they despoiled a sacred day of peaceful transition, turning a democratic formality into a seething mob cauldron.

Richard Sisk (MILITARY.COM) notes:

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a retired Army National Guard lieutenant colonel who lost both legs in Iraq, said on Twitter, "I have spent my entire adult life defending our Constitution and people's rights to peacefully demonstrate. I never thought I'd need to defend democracy from an attempted, violent overthrow in our own nation's Capitol."

And you didn't, Tammy, quit pretending otherwise.  You didn't defend either the country or the Constitution or democracy on Wednesday from a violent overthrow.  You're so ridiculous.  

Drama Queens and Nervous Nellies, that's what we've got.  Let's cue up the music for them.

It's the end of the world -- our drama queens insist and squeal.  

It's not.  Democracy lives on and it has continued uninterrupted.  Instead of having a little pride in that fact, cry babies and fanatics like Tammy weep in public and gnash their teeth.  Oh, the drama of it all.

Let's offer some perspective.

First on the US Congress.

AFP notes this photo from their Olivier Douliery:

Lockdown. photographer Olivier Douliery was with Congress staffers forced to barricade themselves in a room after Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol

Does that photo make you clutch your pearls?  Or your ben wa beads?

Doesn't make me feel anything except a resigned "Good."

Because I'm a cruel and evil person?  Maybe.  

But Congress is filled with adults.  What we see above?  Is it shocking to you?  Well drop your surprise and grasp that students across America live with that reality on a daily basis.  And not just in drills.  Since the start of 2000, there have been at least 400 school shootings in the United States.

Congress has sat on its collective ass.  This despite their need to politicize every school shooting.  We've never done that.  Not just me here but community wide.  We do not politicize those shootings and usually step away when the politicizing starts.  Congress is full of words and blame but they never do anything constructive, do they?

So maybe this week, maybe they finally learned what it was like for America's children?  Long overdue.

Here's another perspective:

So much outrage globally esp from American allies few thousand ppl attack capital Hill. When hundreds of thousands of people were being killed in Iraq elsewhere where were these holy protests.

A war making body, it might be added, saw violence.  Were you scared?  Seth Moulton, Tammy Duckworth, et all, were you scared?  Imagine all the people killed in wars across the country?  Wars you have the power to stop but have not stopped.  

Maybe, if you have a higher power, you should drop to your knees and pray for clarity and understanding.  

At least pray to not look like such a preening coward in public.

Democracy survived this week.  Stop being drama queens.  I also find it interesting how quickly the firings followed.  No need for an investigation or anything, just action, action, action!  That doesn't happen when the police shoot an innocent, does it?  No.  It's a long drawn out investigation which is often a white-wash.  

I'm sorry for anyone injured or killed.  But democracy survived, the country survived.  How about taking a moment to grasp that, to promote strength instead of wallowing in weakness?  Pride instead of victimhood?

One of the dead?  Teri Figueroa (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE) reports:

Ashli Babbitt held passionate political views, sometimes taking to social media and excoriating politicians, posting selfies in a red MAGA hat, retweeting QAnon backers.

Registered to vote as a libertarian, the 35-year-old was a staunch Trump backer — so much so that this week she made the 3,000-mile trip to Washington to join like-minded supporters for what she hoped would be a political triumph giving the president a second term in power.

On Tuesday — the day of her flight to the nation’s capital — she tweeted: “Nothing will stop us....they can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!”

Why did people participate?  First, the bulk participated peacefully.  Second, when you feel shut out of the process, you're going to rise up.  And the media needs to look at it's own actions.  It has lied and lied for years now.  It's not fair.  

Let's drop back to pre-Trump for a supposed fact check that NPR did (Alice Fordham was the one doing the 'check'):

Was Obama responsible for the timing of the withdrawal?

It was President George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces agreement in 2008, which planned for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

"The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq — a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge," he said in a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki at the time.

Moments later, an Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at the president. It is important to remember most Iraqis saw the Americans as occupiers and blame them for civilian deaths.

Maliki summed up the sentiment at the time, thus:

"The incomplete sovereignty and the presence of foreign troops are the most dangerous, most complicated and most burdensome legacy we have faced since the time of dictatorship. Iraq should get rid of them to protect its young democratic experiment."

Thousands of American troops had died, and by the time Obama announced the withdrawal, fully three-quarters of Americans supported the withdrawal (though a majority of Republicans did not).

Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn't done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.

Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.

"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."

The State Department's lawyers said troops couldn't stay in Iraq unless the Iraqi parliament authorized them to do so, including granting them immunity from Iraqi law. The Iraqi parliamentarians would never OK such a decision, with Iraqi popular opinion staunchly against U.S. troops staying.

Sowell saw State's decision as a deliberately insurmountable obstacle.

"It was a barrier that was very high," he said, "and there was no way it was going to be jumped over."

But, does Obama bear responsibility for the timing of the troop withdrawal? On balance, no.

He was following through on an agreement made by Bush and abiding by the will of the Iraqi and American people.

Barack was responsible.  First off, the SOFA did not mean US troops left Iraq.  The SOFA is an agreement that replaces the UN mandate.  Each year, after the invasion, foreign troops were covered by the UN mandate.  This was a yearly mandate.  At the end 2006, Nouri extended it.  There was massive outrage.  He promised to refer to the Parliament.  In 2007, he again extended it to even greater outrage (he didn't refer it to the Parliament).  The SOFA replaces the UN mandate.  It was a three year agreement because it was too difficult to get a yearly for Nouri and he and the US government felt it would effect his chances of re-election.  The SOFA was a contract.

More to the point, Barack tried to extend it.  Leon Panetta testified to Congress that they were still working on this as late as November 2011 and that he thought a deal might be reached in the next year (2012).  The sticky point was the number of US troops.  

So when the press plays like they did above and they lie, they make people doubt that they can be honest.  And when they go all in on destroying Donald Trump -- which they did -- Trump supporters are going to be even less inclined to believe them.  These Trump supporters felt their voice was robbed.


ADDED: The public e-mail account apparently has a huge number of e-mails insisting I was avoiding "the big issue" -- impeachment.

Wasn't avoiding it, hadn't thought about it.  I live in the real world.  On Mondays and Fridays, I try to check in with community members who have COVID or who have gotten over it (check-in by phone).  That's a little more important to me than impeachment.

On impeachment, if the Congress wants to try it, then they should.  That's democracy.  It would certainly be on stronger ground than the ridiculous lies about Russia that so many fools embraced.

Should he be impeached?

Legally?  I've yet to hear a coherent argument on legal grounds.  You have to selectively quote Donald Trump to even make a case on inciting violence.  Did he yell "fire" in a crowded theater?

(A) No, he didn't and saying he did would set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.

(B) There was no case about "fire" being yelled -- the case that contains that opinion is actually about US citizens advocating for people to refuse to be drafted.  

There may be a legal argument to be made.  The best one would be built around proving that Donald was a clear and present danger to the US.  With that, you could bring in his statements and you could also bring in issues of peaceful transfer of power and argue that he hasn't not done that and, therefore, he is a clear and present danger who must be removed immediately before he does something worse.

I'd be interested in seeing that argument constructed and you might be able to make a strong case on it.  But the arguments presented thus far do not appear strong -- or strong enough.  That said, the House would probably vote to impeach regardless.

But that brings us to the Senate.

And they try impeachment to see if the person should be censured, removed from office, etc.

The argument here could be (a) he is a clear and present danger so we must take up the American people's time with this.  That's your only pro-impeachment argument.  Unless someone comes up with something else, that's really it.  And that approach would justify a real trial -- because we would need to determine whether or not Donald was now a clear and present danger to the country.


If your issue is just what took place on one day in DC, some will respond that the day is already over, what's the point?  He is gone in 12 days, what's the point?

To justify using time on impeachment at this point -- the House to quickly vote, the Senate to have a trial -- which would include Donald being able to call all the witnesses he wanted and his attorney arguing on behalf of Donald -- which would probably be a long trial -- you'd need a charge like Donald remaining in office for less than two weeks is a clear and present danger to the United States.

Again, I haven't thought much about it.  I live in the real world and that's the world where most of us live -- far beyond the faux 'resistance.'  A lot of people are struggling -- with COVID, with financial issues due to the pandemic, you name it (and I think we may need to recognize PTS-like conditions in our healthcare workers and other front line workers.  My point?

A lot of people -- even those not fond of Donald Trump -- are going to be asking: "12 days?  12 days left and this is what they're doing?  They couldn't provide this or that during the pandemic, they can't provide us with universal healthcare but they're going to waste time impeaching Donald Trump?"  I think there will be a backlash if they do it -- one with a political cost for the next round of elections.  

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't do it, it doesn't mean that they should.

But people need to be aware of that possibility.

Another possibility?  Nancy Pelosi has no real intention of impeaching Donald but is talking about it because she's hoping he'll get scared and resign in order to avoid impeachment a la Tricky Dick Nixon.


The following sites updated:


kulinski is not fooling any 1

 i like jackson hinkle.  i can't stand kyle kulinski.

kyle is a whore.

he's also a feather weight male who thinks he's mister manly.  only months ago he was spending a podcast discussing his nuts.  i'm sure he has nuts, 2 tiny 1s, each about the size of a skittle.

do you see the outfit he's wearing?

does he think he's don johnson and this is the 80s?  he looks more like a female comedian in the 90s.  and some 1 tell him that the jacket is ugly, cheap and way too big for him.

i don't know of a higher pitched voice from a man, by the way.  

but keep dreaming, kyle, that you're manly. 

and keep dreaming that you're whoring is fooling any 1.

let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

Thursday, January 7, 2021.  DC sees the American people while in Baghdad an arrest warrant is issued for Donald Trump.

Yesterday, there was a rally and a riot in DC among Donald Trump's supporters.  Here's one person's take.

I don't use violence, I don't condone violence.  But when there was violence at protests against the police, I didn't rush to condemn the protests and was aware that many more people were protesting peacefully.  

"There was nothing to be gained," Caleb says in the video again.  He says, "We saw human beings acting like animals.  We saw property destroyed."

We saw reality.  I'm sorry that a woman was killed. 

This was a protest by right wingers and it is not representative of all right wingers.  I also don't think it was all that awful.  Congress needs to know that they answer to the people.

The Congress is their Congress.  It's our Congress.  It's the people's house.  American people have the right to protest.

Donald Trump is not getting a second term.

I don't get the outrage from people in the center and on the left.  

'Oh, it's so awful.'

No, it's really not.  It is an ongoing lesson that the process -- such as it is -- works.  The protesters -- even those that you want to call a mob (for good reason) -- didn't alter the election.

Donald has used every technique he can think of to overturn the results.  The results stand.  This is a testament to democracy.  Every time he tries something else, it just shows the world what democracy is and how strong it is.

No offense to 'communist' countries, but a lot of them were toppled by things like this.  Democracy is strong.  (Real Communism might be as well, I don't think we've seen that though. The USSR probably came closest.  I'm referring to political science definitions here, if you haven't studied it, we'll just disagree.)  Democracy involves the people.  The people of America?  They elected Joe Biden.

And a protest or a riot doesn't change that.  And legal challenges were overturned by the courts.  

Democracy works.  

It's not perfect. (We need to end wars, we need Medicare For All, we need to address climate change -- seriously address, we need to find solutions for the homeless crisis in this country.)  But a democratic system works.  And that's been obvious every day since the election.  

Donald has been given every opportunity to question the results, to challenge them.

And, in a democratic system, that doesn't paralyze the country.  

This has been a huge learning experience, a strong testament.  

I am so sorry that a woman was shot dead by the police, I am so sorry that other people were injured.  

But the system worked.

Joe Biden will be president on January 20th.  

I don't like Donald Trump.   That predates this site, I've noted that I know him going back to 2005 when Ava and I tackled THE APPRENTICE.  I know him and do not like him and avoid him.  That didn't happen because he was president.  This is due to who he is and it predates that.

But I did not use this site to attack him for personal reasons.  And I didn't make this site a response to his Twitter feed -- the way the media did.  

Unlike those in the media, I didn't applaud Donald for years.  

They may need to take a look at that.

But Donald does have supporters -- he got a huge number of votes -- and they have a right to protest.

Let's stay on Donald but let's move to other news.

AFP reports:

A Baghdad court has issued a warrant for the arrest of US President Donald Trump as part of its investigation into the killing of a top Iraqi paramilitary commander.

Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of Iraq's largely pro-Iran Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary network, died in the same US drone strike that killed storied Iranian general Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad airport on January 3 last year.

The strike on their motorcade was ordered by Trump, who later crowed that it had taken out "two (men) for the price of one".

I don't like Donald.  That said, Iraq issuing an arrest warrant for a sitting US president?  While that government is taking US tax dollars?

In the real world, that warrant is a joke.  And it's a Baghdad court not the country's supreme court.  But this is an issue that appalls me.  If they wanted to issue that after he was out of office, it still wouldn't go anywhere in our current system, but fine.  

To do it right now?  

It just makes clear what I've said all along: ISIS is the problem of the Iraqi government.  It's not a US problem.  US troops need to leave Iraq.  ISIS is still there, yes, but that's up to the Iraqi government to address -- the corrupt Iraqi government.

Another thing to notice is that these two people matter to the Iraqi government.  These two deaths matter.


As we noted weeks ago, go to the UN website and look at the seven pages listing the names of journalists who have been killed in Iraq and notice that not one of those cases has resulted in anyone going to prison.

But these two deaths matter?

BLACKWATER was in Iraq due to and with Bully Boy Bush's permission but they didn't go after Bully Boy Bush for the massacre in 2007, did they? 

The US government paid of some families who had civilians members killed by US troops at checkpoints and they also paid of members of the US government.

This is news to you?  Well maybe you never paid attention of maybe your best source of Iraq information was Phyllis Bennis.  In the fall of 2006, there was Phyllis yacking on the useless programs (like COUNTERSPIN) about how the US government refused to keep a tally of the deaths of Iraqis during the war.  But, Phyllis, as we pointed out to you in real time -- and not just online -- they did keep a count and it had been reported on.  In fact, it was reported on in the summer of 2006. 

Nancy A. Youssef reported it.  She reported it for KNIGHT RIDDER on the last day that it was still KNIGHT RIDDER.  It had already been bought by MCCLATCHY months prior but the switch over would be on the following day.

And maybe that's why Nancy had her article in print while it was still KNIGHT RIDDER?  That's the chain that reported the truth about the Iraq War -- even during the lead up to the war.  MCCLATCHY didn't.  They cheered the war on.  And we had to spend years pointing that out before it sunk in.  

MCCLATCHY is not a great outlet.  It never was.  And the KNIGHT RIDDER staff did far less once they were under MCCLATCHY.  They also began -- this took place while Barack Obama was president -- allowing opinion into news story -- opinions of those reporters supposedly 'reporting.'  They also dropped all standards -- including the two 'star' reporters on Iraq (Warren especially, but both of them).  They were heroes in the lies from the faux left.  They weren't heroes.  They were doing their job with MCCLATCHY which was to question government.  They stopped it once it became MCCLATCHY.  Do you remember the stories exposing this or that about Libya?  The chain of stories about the open slave markets that followed the US attack on Libya?

No.  MCCLATCHY's two 'manly' heroes couldn't be bothered with reality anymore.

But, at any rate, these two deaths matter to a BAGhdad court.

I bet I know which one.  I bet it's the same one Nouri always counted on to issue verdicts for him that he then pocketed -- and no one knew about -- and would later pull out of his pocket to say, "See, this is what's supposed to happen."  He even got away with using that when he didn't like results of an election.  Verdict issued before the election, no one knew except the judges and Nouri, he pulls it out when he doesn't like the results of the elections, waives it around and says, "Look, the judicial system is on my side."  That's the same court, isn't it, that announced that a defendant -- who had yet to appear before them -- was guilty?  Announced it in a press conference.  With one of the judges on the panel claiming that he was personally threatened.

That's what they did.  And they did it to Iraq's then vice president Tareq al-Hashemi.

I bet it's that Baghdad court.  

It's a joke.  

But if this is how it's going to go, if the leaders of both government aren't going to communicate with one another, let's pull all US troops right now.

We should have done it a long, long time ago.

We also should have stopped sending money to the Iraqi government a long time ago.

Iraq's about to enter an awful, awful period.  And that's appalling but it's due to government corruption.  (The US government helped set that system up, so there's responsibility there.)  

Iraq's an oil rich nation.  Can you imagine if you're a country without any natural resources, watching Iraq bring in billions every month and now tell their citizens that this isn't available and this resource is cut or gutted and this . . .

It's an oil rich country.  It should never, ever have an economic problem.

We're talking a pop4ulation around 40 million. 

China has almost 1.4 billion people.  Iraq's only got 40 million.  And yet it's about to hit austerity measures, hit the people with them.

In 2019, Iraq made $78.530 billion off oil.  78.530 billion.  And 40 million people.  And yet it's had to devalue the dinar.  

The corruption has resulted in Nouri al-Maliki being rich.  His awful son has multiple sports cars and multiple residence (including his party pad in London).  But the Iraqi people have nothing.  They don't have jobs.  They struggle every day.  And they struggle because they have a corrupt government.

That's why ISIS took hold in Iraq.  Nouri was persecuting the Sunnis.  He was sending tanks to circle the homes of elected Sunnis who were in Parliament.  He had the Iraqi military raid the home of a Sunni member of Parliament -- this resulted in one of the MP's family members being killed.

By the way, I don't remember that Baghdad court issuing an arrest warrant for Nouri.

Nouri's thugs were going to the homes of Sunnis they wanted to arrest and not finding the man they wanted to arrest.  So what did they do?

They arrested the man's mother.  His sister, his wife, his daughter, his son, his grandfather . . .

And these people then 'disappeared.'  Off they went into the system that no one could find them in.

And this is what led to the rise of ISIS.

ISIS rose in Iraq presenting itself as a group -- this took place in public -- that was going to defend the Sunni protesters who were shutting down a major road that ran from Falluja to Baghdad.  

That's when ISIS makes its public stand in Iraq.

Now that a Baghdad court has issued a warrant for a sitting US president while they have diplomatic relations with the US, it's time to get US troops out of Iraq.

Again, this isn't the supreme court of Iraq. This doesn't represent the view of the current prime minister.  But the current prime minister only became prime minister in May of last year.  The one before was forced out of office.  Meaning, the feelings of a prime minister may or may not matter.  What we know is that an arrest warrant against the US can be issued by a Baghdad court.  For that reason, we need to get US troops out of Iraq.

Now I'm against the war.  Started speaking out against it in February 2003, a month before it broke out.  I have called for all US troops to leave Iraq since the US-led invasion started.

And there are so many reasons for that -- strong reasons.  But right now, today, there is a new reason and it's that arrest warrant for Donald Trump.

He's not at risk of being arrested.

But this is a precedent that needs to register.

I don't think it will, however.  I think, because it's Donald, you're going to see a lot of glee from various US commentators.  Some will be endorsing it (that's appalling) and some will be seeing it as something to make jokes about.

US troops are on Iraqi soil.  We need to be thinking about that and about what this type of warrant means for them.  Again, this isn't going to effect Donald Trump in the least. He's not going to stand trial in Baghdad.

Can we say the same about US troops in Iraq?  

I can see an incident leading to huge outcries, I can see the Baghdad court issuing a warrant and I can see militias trying to execute that warrant.  That's the worst case scenario and that's what we need to be thinking about because US troops are over there risking their lives and no one, all this time later, can give them an honest reason for why they are in Iraq.

Here's Jimmy Dore on DC events yesterday.

Here's Katie Halper's take.

So that's four different takes -- you got Caleb's take, Jimmy's take, Katie's take and my take.  Maybe something in one of them spoke to you, maybe your take is different from all four?

But while you think about DC, try to think about what's taken in place in Baghdad today and what it could mean for any US service member on the ground in Iraq. 

It's way past time for all US troops to leave Iraq.

The following sites updated:

  • 1/06/2021

    daddy issues?

    i saw this on youtube and it made me laugh.

    let's close with c.i.'s 'Iraq snapshot:'

     Wednesday, January 6, 2021.  Michelle Goldberg's selective outrage gets called out as the issue of US troops in Iraq remains in the news.

    Let's start with some common sense, Andrew Mitrovica (ALJAZEERA) explains:

    The posh enablers of America’s empire have always required that the grunts do the maiming and murdering in pursuit of their disastrous geopolitical adventures.

    The corollary to this, of course, is the same posh enablers rush for the exits when, occasionally, the grunts end up in the dock for all the maiming and murdering done to enforce America’s dominion over nations the posh enablers have insisted – with obdurate certainty – require emancipation.

    For more prima facie evidence of this axiom, you need only digest the reaction among the posh enablers of the US destruction (sorry, emancipation) of Iraq to news of Donald Trump’s pardon of four mercenaries (aka grunts) convicted in connection with the murder of 17 Iraqis, including two children, in Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007.

    One mortified New York Times columnist wrote that the pardons, while predictable, were conspicuous not only because of their “depravity” and “grotesqueness”, but are also proof that “the last days of Trump’s reign have been an orgy of impunity”.

    That a Times scribe invoked the notion of “impunity” in a lengthy column denouncing the pardons of four killers liable for the massacre, while failing to acknowledge the newspaper’s irrefutable role in championing a “pre-emptive war” that ultimately facilitated the “orgy of violence” in Nisour Square and beyond is as predictable as it is a grotesque example of moral expediency and amnesia.

    Mitrovica goes on to outline the paper's long history in ensuring the Iraq War started.  The author of the column he's quoting?  Michelle Goldberg.  Search for Michelle's column ahead of the start of the war calling out war on Iraq.  You won't find it.  You will find, in October of 2002, her attack on the peace movement for SALON, it's entitled "Peace Kooks."  Yes, while the country was marching to war on Iraq, Michelle took the time to . . . attack the peace movement.

    There's a lot of blood on her hands.  TASNIM reports:

     Iraq filed a lawsuit against the US for bombing the Arab country with depleted uranium several times over the course of two decades.

    On Tuesday, Iraq’s al-Maaloumah news website reported the initiation of the legal proceedings related to the bombing spats that plagued Iraq with rampant and deadly radioactive contamination.

    The lawsuit was lodged by Hatif al-Rikabi, the Iraqi parliament’s legal advisor, with a Swedish court in Stockholm on December 26.

    The suit demands compensation for the repercussions of the bombings that targeted the country’s former nuclear installations twice in the 1990s and once in the 2000s, said al-Rikabi, who is also a member of Baghdad’s negotiation team with the United Nations.

    Michelle Goldberg likes to pretend a lot.  She's a columnist.  Where's her report on the birth defects in Iraq?  Or even on the US troops' children after a parent served in Iraq.  One New York paper did have a columnist who covered that story -- Juan Gonzalez before he retired from THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS.  Michelle pretends to be horrified by pardons of four Blackwater guards.


    Another male born in FGH 2 days ago with multiple gross congenital anomalies in addition to CHD , he is the 1st baby to 2 young healthy couples with no previous history of any anomaly
    Another male born in FGH with multiple gross congenital anomalies in addition to CHD , he is the 1st baby to 2 young healthy couples with no previous history of any anomaly

    And . . .

    "Findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases," says a recent scientific report on the incidence of birth defects in Fallujah [Dr Samira Alani]

     That's from ALJAZEERA.  Michelle Golberg wants to pretend to care about Iraqis but she's horrified by four Blackwater guards being sprung from prison early but not the babies above, not their families.  It she can use something for partisan gain, she is shocked, she is horrified.  If it requires actual thought, Michelle has nothing to say.  Let's note Dr. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani's 2013 "What's delaying the WHO report on Iraqi birth defects?" (also from ALJAZEERA):

    Iraq is poisoned. Thirty-five million Iraqis wake up every morning to a living nightmare of childhood cancers, adult cancers and birth defects. Familial cancers, cluster cancers and multiple cancers in the same individual have become frequent in Iraq.
    Sterility, repeated miscarriages, stillbirths and severe birth defects - some never described in any medical books - are all around, in increasing numbers. Trapped in this hellish nightmare, millions of Iraqis struggle to survive, and they call for help.

    2500 US troops will have left Iraq by January 15th per US President Donald Trump orders, as noted by Khazan Jangiz (RUDAW).  There are now said/guessed to be 2500 left.  This does not include Special Ops, this does not include the CIA -- which retains the largest base in Iraq -- the largest of any country other than the US.  But excluding those groups -- Special Ops and the CIA -- even excluding private contractors, we still don't know how many US troops are in Iraq -- there is no reliable count and hasn't been for years.  

    XINHUA reports:

    Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi said on Tuesday that only hundreds of U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of half of them from the country.

    Al-Kadhimi said, during a televised speech on the eve of the centenary of the Iraqi Army Day, the U.S. troops' withdrawal came due to "the ongoing strategic dialogue between Iraq and the United States that yield in the withdrawal of batches of U.S. troops during the past months. The withdrawal of more than half of them will complete in the coming days."

    Will anything change with a new incoming president?  Pro-war Dr. Faleh Alhamrant (THE MEDIA LINE) offers:

    American experts believe that President-elect Joe Biden will seek to reduce the American presence in Iraq due to long-term domestic political pressures, and shift the focus of foreign policy toward other arenas, such as China and Russia. This, in turn, will create opportunities for regional actors, especially Iran, to extend their influence in Iraq. On the other hand, the Biden Administration has the option of turning a new page in Iraq, and some experts suggest that the new president will decide to maintain boots on the ground. The Trump Administration helped Iraq complete its campaign to regain all the lands that were captured by the Islamic State. Unlike Trump, Biden will face a weak ISIS that no longer controls significant territory and doesn’t pose a grave threat to the stability of Iraq. But Biden already has made it clear that he plans on reducing military confrontation with Iranian-backed militias in Iraq as part of a broader policy he adopts, aimed at reducing the level of tension with Tehran. This American view of Iraq as a regional partner in combating terrorism means that he won’t withdraw US forces from the country completely. The Biden Administration understands the potential risks in the event of a final US withdrawal from Iraq, and will seek to avoid this by maintaining a limited military presence in the country. 

    ISIS is not weak.  That's no reason for US forces to stay in Iraq, ISIS is Iraq's issue to deal with -- and the best way would be to represent their citizens -- ISIS grew out of government persecution carried out by then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.  ISIS is not weak.  'They don't hold territory!'  That's not their aim.  They lucked into that.  Their aim, as terrorists, is violence and they carry that out daily in Iraq.  We've talked about what you use as your baseline before and how when you raise the bar higher than it should be you can pretend like there's been success.  There has been no success.  

    Are they still engaged in violence in Iraq?  Yes, they are.  

    US troops need to leave Iraq.

    From PBS' NEWSHOUR (link has text, audio and video):

  • [Militia supporter] Hussein Ali (through translator):

    We want these decisions to be implemented. The people voted on the decision to remove the American forces. And we want to remove all American forces peacefully. But if they are not achieved by peaceful means, then the people will resist.

  • Jack Hewson:

    With 2,500 U.S. troops still in country, that resistance is made reality by continued attacks on convoys and lands in the form of rockets launched on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

    The U.S. reportedly threatened to evacuate its embassy here, among the largest in the world, last fall. The last attack was on December 20, as eight rockets were fired at the U.S. Embassy. Red tracers from the embassies defense system returned fire.

    No group has claimed responsibility, but government forces arrested members of a prominent pro-Iranian faction called Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, or AAH. In response to the arrests, masked men claiming to be members of AAH made threats against Iraqi prime minister, Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, posted on social media.

    AAH spokesperson Mahmoud al-Rubaie denied the group's involvement, either with the attack or the video threats, and said that one of their arrested associates had been forced to confess.

  • Halgurd Sherwani (KURDISTAN 24) reports: 

    Iraq’s defense minister, ahead of Army Day, warned that the country could be headed to a “civil war” if foreign diplomatic offices continue to be targeted by rogue groups.

    Iraqi Defense Minister Juma Anad’s remarks came on Tuesday in an interview with Al-Arabiyah TV ahead of the Iraqi military’s Army Day on Jan. 6, which marks 100 years of its establishment.

    “The continued attacks on the Green Zone and diplomatic representations will lead Iraq into a civil war,” the defense minister said, warning only “Iraqi citizens would be the victims” if that happens.

    Monday's snapshot noted the UK judge Vanessa Baraitser denied the US government's request to extradite WIKILEAKS publisher Julian Assange. This morning, Baraister denied a bail request for Julian.  Background, Julian is being persecuted for exposing War Crimes of the US government.  Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released  military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Chelsea  Manning and she stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. There was an Article 32 hearing and then a court-martial.  February 28, 2013, Chelsea admitted she leaked to WikiLeaks.  And why.

    Chelsea Manning:   In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
    I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

    Caitlin Johnstone notes the judge's ruling and what's needed next:

    In the end, though, Baraitser ruled against extradition. Not because the US government has no business extraditing an Australian journalist from the UK for exposing its war crimes. Not because allowing the extradition and prosecution of journalists under the Espionage Act poses a direct threat to press freedoms worldwide. Not to prevent a global chilling effect on natsec investigative journalism into the behaviors of the largest power structures on our planet. No, Baraitser ultimately ruled against extradition because Assange would be too high a suicide risk in America’s draconian prison system.

    Assange is still not free, and he is not out of the woods. The US government has said it will appeal the decision, and Baraitser has the legal authority to keep Assange locked in Belmarsh Prison until that appeals process has been carried through all the way to its end. Discussions on bail and release will resume on Wednesday, and Assange will remain imprisoned in Belmarsh at least until that time. Due to Assange’s bail offense which resulted from taking political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012, it’s very possible that bail will be denied and he will remain imprisoned throughout the US government appeal.

    The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), the Australian trade union to which Assange belongs as a journalist, has released a statement on the ruling which outlines the situation nicely.

    “Today’s court ruling is a huge relief for Julian, his partner and family, his legal team and his supporters around the world,” said MEAA Media Federal President Marcus Strom. “Julian has suffered a 10-year ordeal for trying to bring information of public interest to the light of day, and it has had an immense impact on his mental and physical health.”

    “But we are dismayed that the judge showed no concern for press freedom in any of her comments today, and effectively accepted the US arguments that journalists can be prosecuted for exposing war crimes and other government secrets, and for protecting their sources,” Strom added. “The stories for which he was being prosecuted were published by WikiLeaks a decade ago and revealed war crimes and other shameful actions by the United States government. They were clearly in the public interest. The case against Assange has always been politically motivated with the intent of curtailing free speech, criminalising journalism and sending a clear message to future whistleblowers and publishers that they too will be punished if they step out of line.”

    Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh.  In addition, October 22, 2010, WikiLeaks released 391,832 US military documents on the Iraq War. The documents -- US military field reports -- reveal torture and abuse and the ignoring of both. They reveal ongoing policies passed from the Bush administration onto the Obama one. They reveal that both administrations ignored and ignore international laws and conventions on torture. They reveal a much higher civilian death toll than was ever admitted to. Calls are coming in from officials in many countries for an investigation -- including from the UK, Norway and Israel -- and from the United Nations High Commissoner for Human Rights and the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture. 

    This morning, Kevin Gosztola reviewed a new development in the case on SHADOW PROOF regarding the bail decision.

    Now let's try to deal quickly with several issues related to Medicare For All.  The country needs Medicare For All -- this isn't a want, it's a need.  And it's needed only more so in the pandemic.  A lot of e-mails to the public account are asking about this or that.  First, I don't live in front of computer. I can't follow every back in forth that nonsense like Ana, Cenk, Kyle and others do.  

    One e-mailer wanted to know why Ana Kasparian needs to be fired, according to me, but Jimmy Dore doesn't need to be fired for what he said.

    You are confused about many things.  First of all, Jimmy Dore hosts THE JIMMY DORE SHOW.  He can say whatever he wants.  Second, I didn't call for Ana to be fired from THE YOUNG TURKS -- she belongs in that cess pool.  I did call for her to be fired from the weekend program JACOBIN does.  She and Cenk can say whatever they want on TYT -- Cenk can endorse sex with animals -- as he has -- or flaunt his hatred for women -- as he has -- or deny the Armenian genocide -- as he has -- and Ana can stay right next to him being the useless idiot that she is.  (Which we may come back to in a second.)  But when she does a program for JACOBIN, she's representing JACOBIN.  JACOBIN does not need to be pulled into this personal conflict.  Their readers don't need it.  When has Ana talked -- she doesn't report, she just yacks -- about Iraq?  Not on the JACOBIN program.  But she can make time to launch an attack on Katie Halper and Briahana Joy Gray?  And do so on JACOBIN's program?


    She was a problem before that and she was diluting JACOBIN's brand and what it represents and is supposed to represent.  Now she's used their space to launch her personal attack -- an attack that drags the magazine into this.

    She needs to go from JACOBIN.  And that's before you get to her getting kissy-kissy with War Criminal Mad Maddie Albright.

    Her role on TYT?  I don't respect it.  I think you're a bit of whore when you do that.  I felt that way about the actress on HOME IMPROVEMNT that played the wife and mother -- don't remember her name, don't want to.  No career after the show and good for that.  A dumb idiot who existed to say, "Oh, Tim, oh, boys . . ."  I don't respect it when Mika does that on MORNING JOE and I don't respect it when Ana does it on TYT.  Out of control men are coddled by women who exist solely for that purpose.  

    [Added 10:39, HOME IMPROVEMENT -- not LAST MAN STANDING.  Nancy Travis is a strong actress and she does not play a coddler -- in the paragraph above it says HOME IMPROVEMENT but some people are wrongly running with Nancy Travis.  Nancy is a real actress.  Martha & Shirley are seeing some e-mails thinking the above refers to Nancy and it does not.  She is playing a real character that she has fully developed.  Nancy is a strong actress on the set as well and would never allow herself or a  character she played to be a doormat unless it was a critique of doormats.]

    Find your own voice and your own reason for being, stop being so embarrassing.

    There's another aspect I hoped to address this morning but there's not time.  I'll try to grab it tomorrow.  

    The following sites updated: