9/04/2019

'dynasty' returns october 11th

 3 hours ago
"The  cast is boldly defying convention - by wearing white after Labor Day. Tune in October 11th to see what’s next..." New pic of with the cast at the table read! 📸: lizsczudlo's Instagram.
8 retweets30 likes
 
 



'dynasty' returns october 11th on 'the cw' with new episodes.

i can't wait. 

in the photo above, is that adam (with longer hair) in the middle?

i know that's liam next to fallon (and the tweet is from the actor who plays liam) so it's a good guess he didn't die in the cliffhanger, right?

i'm glad, liam is a good character.  they need him.

they still haven't found the new alexis - or if they have, they're keeping it under wraps.


  1.  Aug 26
    The CW is still trying to find a new Alexis for Season 3 of "Dynasty." Why not give Emma Samms () a call. She'd be perfect for the part and fans of the orignal " would love it.
     
     



i don't think so.  i still argue for heather locklear.

emma?

she was good as holly on 'general hospital.'  but she was lousy as fallon on the original 'dynasty' and on 'the colbys.'  in fairness to her, she was saddled with the 'fallon was kidnapped by aliens!' nonsense storyline but she wasn't good regardless. 

while they don't know who will play alexis, they have made a casting change with crystal.


  1.  Aug 7
    They can say killing off a cristal each season is part of the outlandish drama and what makes it a soap opera when really the CW is somehow incapable of casting this role right Y’all cast meeton as Blair, Sophia as Brooke, Dawson’s CREEK, what is going ON
     
     



so our 3rd crystal?  and this time, the new crystal is not because the character's changed.  (season 1 crystal turned out to be a fake.)

what do you think about that?


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


Wednesday, September 4, 2019.  Joe Biden, his "word as a Biden," can't stop lying.



Starting in the United States where the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues.


Joe Biden is suddenly now insisting he opposed authorizing the Iraq War -- when in fact he was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman who actively led the fight to help the GOP authorize the Iraq War.
7:13 PM - 3 Sep 2019



Joe Biden is a War Hawk and that remains true no matter how many times US House Rep Tulsi Gabbard lies and covers for him.  Joe's a mess.  Paul Rosenberg (SALON) notes:

 The core of Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is the argument that he represents the “safe” choice. He’s the candidate who can defeat Trump. He’s the candidate folks are comfortable with. (He’s “Uncle Joe”!) He represents a “return to normalcy.” He can “reach out to Republicans” and “bring people together.”
But not only is it unclear whether Biden is really the “safe” choice — other Democrats have beaten Trump handily in recent polls as well (Quinnipiac, Fox), while seeming more sure-footed — it’s unclear how safe being “safe” really is. A "return to normalcy" will do nothing to address the underlying problems that led to Trump's election in the first place — neither the deep systemic problems of democratic decline around the world nor the specific problems of the American political system, driven by long-term forces described by Peter Turchin in “Ages of Discord” (Salon review here). 
The long-term trends of increased polarization and negative partisanship described by Alan Abramowitz in "The Great Alignment" (Salon interview here) and Rachel Bitecofer (Salon interview here) aren’t going anywhere. Nor will the Republican Party magically reverse its 50-plus-year transformation, as explained in “The Long Southern Strategy” by Angie Maxwell (Salon interview here) and Todd Shields. Nor is there any reason to believe the GOP will stop playing asymmetric constitutional hardball (Salon stories here and here). Everything fundamental that made Trump possible in the first place is going to continue, unless something sweeping and extraordinary is done to counter it — and that’s precisely what Biden’s “return to normalcy” argument assures us will not be done.
A would-be President Biden will not get much more cooperation from the GOP than Obama did, but he will continue to play nice, babbling on about his “good Republican friends” only to have them tar him with everything that goes wrong as a result. All this will make massive midterm losses in 2022 even more likely (à la 1994 and 2010, as I noted here), and will position the GOP to run a more professional and disciplined Trumpist to defeat him in 2024. 

None of that is certain, of course. The future never is. But what is certain is that Biden doesn’t give a moment’s thought to any of these grave concerns. He can’t. If he did, he’d have to engage in a much broader discussion of political realities that his entire candidacy is premised on avoiding — not least because his whole political history of defensive political posturing helped to bring about this disastrous state of affairs in the first place.

Over at THE WEEK, Tim O'Donnell observes:

 The 2020 Democratic presidential candidate recently came under fire again after The Washington Post revealed that a story he told on the campaign trail about a time when he traveled to Afghanistan to pin a Silver Star on a Navy captain actually conflated details from several different anecdotes. In an interview with NPR on Tuesday, Biden didn't deny that he flubbed some minor details when recounting the story, but, in his opinion, that shouldn't really matter. Instead, Biden maintained he was making a point about the bravery of soldiers in Afghanistan, which holds true regardless of there being some inaccuracies.

First off, he sounds like Karl Rove and many others in the Bully Boy administration.  Will he next insist reality is what he makes it?  Second, he called the troops who were dead "fallen angels."  This is becoming an issue to everyone but the press.

Does the press neither go to a place of worship or know any people who do?  As e-mails to the public account have repeatedly pointed out for days now, dead troops are not fallen angels.  The term "fallen angel" derives from the Bible and describes Lucifer.  The devil.  Joe Biden needs to stop calling troops who have passed "fallen angels."  It's ticking a lot of people off including people who might otherwise support him.  The press has missed this story and they might want to start asking themselves why that is.

CBS NEWS notes Joe's dismissal as well:

 But according to the Washington Post, who spoke to more than a dozen military and campaign sources, "Biden got the time period, the location, the heroic act, the type of medal, the military branch and the rank of the recipient, as well as his own role in the ceremony" wrong.
[. . .]
In an interview Thursday, Biden called the criticisms "ridiculous," saying, "...The central point is it was absolutely accurate what I said ... The story was that he refused the medal because the fella he tried to save, and risked his life saving, died. That's the beginning, middle and end."


It's ridiculous to hold Joe accountable, it's ridiculous to expect his words to be accurate?  Sounds a lot like Karl Rove, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out."

Joe Biden is a damn liar.

That's the reality.

And shame on the media because they've refused to push back.

Joe's 'defense' (lie) is that the details don't matter.

Hmm?

Well when he told that story what else did he say?

"This is the God's truth.  My word as a Biden."

It's not just that what he said wasn't true, it's also that while telling his little fable, he told the audience "This is the God's truth" when it wasn't and gave them "My word as a Biden."

Why isn't the press holding him accountable?

Why isn't anyone asking him, "You say the details don't matter, but when you told the story, you told the people before you, 'This is the God's truth. My word as a Biden.' Don't you need to offer some sort of an apology since it wasn't 'the God's truth' and since you'd give your 'word as a Biden' or is it just okay to lie?"

Let's go back to Joe's lies about Iraq, specifically, his lying that all he did was vote for it and immediately opposed the war.  First off, it's a lie.  Second off, if trashy Tulsi Gabbard hadn't spent her post-debate time weeks ago providing cover for Joe, lying for him, insisting he'd apologized and said he was wrong, he might not be able to get away with this nonsense.  (By the way, while Tulsi lied for him, US House Rep Seth Moulton was calling for him to admit he was wrong for voting for the war.  Tulsi knew this.  She chose to whore.  That's why we don't have to cover her campaign anymore.  That and the fact that it's a dead campaign.)

Joseph Zeballos-Roig (BUSINESS INSIDER) notes:

 Former Vice President Joe Biden said in an NPR interview that he opposed the Iraq War shortly after it began in March 2003, but he didn't publicly come out against it until 2005.
The leading Democratic presidential candidate voted to authorize the use of military force against Iraq in late 2002 as a US Senator from Delaware. He's been strongly criticized for that vote to support the war throughout the Democratic primary.
Furthermore, Biden claimed during the interview that the moment the war began in earnest, he "immediately" opposed it.
"That moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment," Biden said.
Although during the time preceding and following the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Biden, in fact, did not oppose the broader war effort. In many instances, he openly supported it.
During a press conference outside the White House in June 2002, Biden recalled telling Bush there isn't "a single informed person who suggests that you can take down Saddam [Hussein] and not be prepared to stay for two, four, five years to give the country a chance to be held together."
This appears to conflict with his recollection to NPR, that his vote was conditioned on the apparently limited scope of Bush's mission.

Paul Blest (SPLINTER) notes the lie as well:

 Here’s a fun game to play at home with your friends and loved ones: Is Joe Biden lying, senile, or both?
Hot off the heels of the former vice president getting essentially every detail wrong while retelling one of his favorite war stories, and then denying he got that story wrong, NPR and Iowa Public Radio have a new interview out with Biden today in which Biden stressed that the details are “irrelevant” (his word).

Eoin Higgins (SALON) also notes the issue:

 As Khalid pointed out in her report from the interview, that's not backed up by the historical record:
In multiple public remarks made after the invasion began in 2003, Biden openly supported the effort. Biden publicly said his vote was a mistake as early as 2005, but not immediately when the war began in 2003.
"Nine months ago, I voted with my colleagues to give the president of the United States of America the authority to use force, and I would vote that way again today," Biden said in a speech at the Brookings Institution on July 31, 2003. "It was a right vote then, and it'll be a correct vote today."

In a statement, Bush spokesperson Freddy Ford told NPR that Biden was misremembering the events in question.


Is he fit to lead?  One of his biggest critics currently is former Secretary of Defense, Gen James Mattis.  He is out promoting a new book he's co-written which takes Joe to task and then some.  Unless, of course, you watch CNN.

CNN has allowed Christiane Amanpour to have a show even though she has used that platform to call for war on Syria non-stop.  Now, if the trashy Amanwhore was calling for peace, CNN would say she was an activist and fire her.  But she can call for war -- and does -- and keep her show even though it's low rated and her tired act is not bringing in viewers.

She had the general on her show yesterday.  Did they talk about Iraq and his criticism of Joe?  No.  She's not interested in Iraq.  She once was.  She advocated for that war to.  She's just a War Whore who tries to pretend that she's something more.  She's nothing and her husband's a little nothing too.  They are laughed at constantly.  But CNN still lets her destroy.  So Amanwhore used the bulk of her time on Syria.  She wasn't interested in Iraq.  She wanted to then talk Afghanistan but didn't want to pull in Iraq when Mattis' entire point right now is that what happened in Iraq shouldn't happen in Afghanistan.

On Mattis, a number of e-mails are coming in to the public account and the private one.  What am I saying, where do I stand?

I'm telling you what Mattis is saying.

Where do I stand?

Where I always have.

Go back to the archives.

As soon as Barack was elected, before he was even sworn in, I argued here, get the troops out.

This was never going to be peace breaks out in Iraq.

Do it immediately after being sworn in, give a speech saying the American people voted and I have honored their wishes.  And then?

If it went badly -- and it would -- Barack's not the bad guy.  Barack did what he was voted into office for.

Barring that, keep your promise.

Sixteen months became ten at one point, as Tom Hayden giddily noted at one point.

Sixteen or ten months, pull them out.  And the speech you give is, "The American people spoke in the election.  On the campaign trail, I promised to pull US troops out of Iraq by ____ and I have done that."

What did I always say would the mistake -- and usually noted that with Samantha Power on the team, it would be the mistake they would make because that fool always thinks she can fix something?  That they would tinker with it.

And they did.

Barack did not keep his campaign promise (of course, in real time, Samantha Power told the BBC he wouldn't -- that's why she left the campaign, not because she called Hillary a "monster").

He and Joe and Sammy and Susan Rice were so smart and so special that they knew they could fix things.  They couldn't.

Now we come to their big fix, the 2010 election results.  Nouri al-Maliki?  The Iraqi people said no to a second term.  He was an abusive prime minister.  He ran secret prisons and jails and that had already been exposed in his first term as prime minister.

The people instead backed Iraqiya, the brand new political coalition.  It was about unity -- a united Iraq.  That would have been the way to build the future.

But Barack and company believed that Nouri would be their best bet and so they overturned the votes of the Iraqi people (with the US-negotiated Erbil Agreement) and gave Nouri a second term.

Then all hell broke loose.

It wasn't a surprise and I'm not a psychic.

The Erbil Agreement promised that Nouri would make concessions to the other political parties in exchange for his second term.  He used The Erbil Agreement to get his second term and then stalled -- no surprise -- and then announced that he wasn't going to follow it (his attorney announced) because, his attorney said, the contract was illegal.

At this point, the Iraqi people had gone to the polls to vote and to oust a thug.  They had succeeded but their votes were ignored.

Now political leaders in Iraq began stating that they would begin the process to remove Nouri from office.  But, as Moqtada al-Sadr (Shi'ite cleric and movement leader) repeatedly noted, if Nouri would just immediately honor the contract (Erbil Agreement), they would stop this effort.

He wouldn't.

So they followed the Constitution.  They got the MP signatures they needed.  Per the Constitution, they turned it over to the president.  That's a ceremonial role.  All the president does it introduce it formally to the Parliament.  But Joe Biden, yes, Joe Biden, pressured Jalal Talabani.  And Jalal buckled.  He said he had to check the signatures.  There's nothing in the Constitution about that.

But Jalal said he had to.  And he said he had to verify not only that the MP signed the petition but also that, given time to think about it now, did the MP still want their signature on the petition?

Jalal then claimed there were not enough signatures.  He didn't give a number.  He didn't list the ones who said they no longer wanted to be on it.

He just said, take his word for it.

And then he said he had to leave immediately for Germany to have emergency surgery.

He lied there too.

He went to Germany for elective knee surgery.

Let's note that as that same year ended, karma bit Jalal in his fat ass.  He suffered a stroke.  The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot).  Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany.  He remained there for approximately 18 months.  He was not able to speak, he was not able to move.  The Talabani family posed him for pictures that were mocked on Arabic media and compared him to WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S.  The Talabani family lied to the Iraqi people that Jalal had recovered.  He never did and he should have been removed from office for medical reasons per the Iraqi Constitution.

But at that point, where it stood was the Iraqi people had used the ballot to try to fix things.  That was overturned by Barack and Joe.  Their representatives had used the legal means outlined in the country's Constitution.  That was overturned.

What happened next?

Protests.

And Nouri's response was to call the protesters "terrorists."  He had his forces attack and intimidate them.  He threatened the press that dared to cover the protests (one group of reporters were snatched off the streets and tortured -- NPR and THE WASHINGTON PRESS covered it -- THE NEW YORK TIMES mocked it).

What happens when the people and their representatives have exhausted all remedies?

Violence.

It's not a shocker.  And I'm no prophet.  But I did study political science and, under that umbrella, revolution and rebellion.

This was always predictable if you bothered to pay attention.

That's why I warned over and over as this was unfolding.

Nouri's attacks on the people led to the rise of ISIS.  And it wasn't a surprise.

Now the Amanwhores wanted to lie about what was happening so they started this garbage, "Oh, ISIS was created by Bully Boy Bush and the arrests and the imprisonments . . ."

They never wanted precious little Barack to have to be held accountable for anything.

Mattis feels that it was a mistake to have pulled the troops out when Barack did.

It was.  We noted over and over in real time, get them out now.  We noted make it your first action, we then noted that you keep your promise from the campaign trail.

Barack didn't do that.  He wanted to tinker and, as we noted before that started, if you play with it, it becomes your problem and not Bully Boy Bush's alone.

Mattis argues that it was a mistake to pull out when Barack did (with the drawdown -- which was not a withdrawal -- Senator Kay Hagen, among others, pointed that out in the Senate and the DoD was always very clear that it was a "drawdown" and not a "withdrawal").

If his position isn't clear, here's Greg Ri (FOX NEWS):

But Mattis, in his book, did open up about his tenure as head of U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, and zeroed in on the Obama administration's desire to wind down the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, no matter the cost.
Mattis wrote that Obama's tenure "was to be a time when I would witness duty and deceit, courage and cowardice, and, ultimately, strategic frustration."
“In Washington, the debate swirled throughout 2011 about how many, if any, U.S. troops should remain in Iraq,” Mattis recounted. “Central Command, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the new defense secretary, Leon Panetta, who had replaced Bob Gates, continued to recommend to the White House retaining a residual force, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
All of them, Mattis asserted, were "talking to the wind," as Obama was singularly focused on living up to his public promises to end the war in Iraq. In late 2011, Obama said confidently in a speech to the nation that some 40,000 servicemen and women still in Iraq "will definitely be home for the holidays."
The administration's faith in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Mattis said, was also misplaced.
“Prime Minister Maliki is highly untrustworthy, Mr. Vice President,” Mattis said he warned Biden. “He’s devious when he talks to us. ... He looks at our ambassadors and military advisers as impediments to his anti-Sunni agenda. He wants to purge or marginalize Sunnis and Kurds from the government."
Mattis wrote that “Vice President Biden and his assistants listened politely. But as we spoke, I sensed I was making no headway in convincing the administration officials not to support Maliki. It was like talking to people who lived in wooden houses but saw no need for a fire department. ...  I found him an admirable and amiable man. But he was past the point where he was willing to entertain a ‘good idea.’ He didn’t want to hear more; he wanted our forces out of Iraq. Whatever path led there fastest, he favored.
"He exuded the confidence of a man whose mind was made up, perhaps even indifferent to considering the consequences were he judging the situation incorrectly," Mattis concluded.
According to Mattis, Biden countered that “Maliki wants us to stick around, because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise. I’ll bet you my vice presidency.”


We can pick up there tomorrow but I'd rather read the book first and see where Mattis goes with it.  I'd go to the obvious place, the dickering over the number of troops.  The lies Barack told.  We covered it in real time.  I've long noted that Leon Panetta is a friend.  What went down was very ugly and very childish.  And Iraq suffered.  That's on Barack and Joe.


The following sites updated:




Posted by at

9/03/2019

as a biden, he's a liar

joe biden gets caught lying and he responds how?  by declaring that the details are irrelevant.  from 'usa today:'
Former Vice President Joe Biden responded to critics alleging he conflated details of a war story on the campaign trail in an interview with the NPR Politics Podcast and Iowa Public Radio released Monday. 
In the former vice president's view, errors related to details in the story are not relevant to his presidential capabilities. 
"The details are irrelevant in terms of decision-making," he said. 

what a load of crap.  the words mattered enough for him to say them.  and to swear that they were true, remember?  "as a biden," he told them they could trust him.

are we forgetting that part of the lie?

because i'm not.  'the week' notes:

But the facts of what happened in Afghanistan are in one important sense beside the point. They raise a question: Is Joe Biden mentally unsound? He certainly gives a strong impression of having lost a step or three over the years — and a narrative that his mind is in trouble has already taken shape.


joe needs to go.


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


Tuesday, September 3, 2019.  Joe Biden's Iraq fairy tale takes a hit as a former Defense Secretary publishes a book and makes media rounds.



In the US, the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination continues as does the question: If Joe Biden really isn't the only one who can defeat Donald Trump -- and he's not -- what else does he have to offer?

Not much.

Not much at all.

Last Friday, Kelly Jane Torrence (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) reported on a US general who was being very critical of Joe.  The former general is Jim Mattis.  His long career includes participation in both Iraq Wars -- the current one and the Persian Gulf War.  It also includes being in charge of CENTCOM from 2010 to 2013.  He went on to become the last Secretary of Defense serving in Barack Obama's second term.  He has no co-written, with Bing West, a book that comes out today entitled CALL SIGN CHAOS: LEARNING TO LEAD.  As Torrence has noted, it doesn't sing Joe Biden's praises.

His career culminated in three years as the head of U.S. Central Command, overseeing military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia from 2010 to 2013. That meant Mattis was in charge of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as war raged in both countries.
Mattis served under President Obama, and Vice President Biden visited Baghdad in the late summer of 2010. The general writes that the U.S.-led coalition had “at last succeeded in establishing a fragile stability” in Iraq. The administration was considering withdrawing some troops, and any forces remaining would require the permission of the Iraqi government, then led by the embattled Nouri al-Maliki. “The National Security staff in the White House believed that Maliki offered a continuity that, in their minds, would facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. troops.” Mattis disagreed, and he told Biden so during dinner after “a hot Baghdad day.”


Huh?  They trusted Nouri?  They saw Nouri being in place as necessary to keeping the appearance of Barack's promise of withdrawal?

Wow, that is a shocker.  If only someone could have discussed that in real time.  If only, when Barack was in the White House, someone could have talked about that.

Oh wait.  We did.  Repeatedly.  We addressed it here over and over.  We addressed how Barack stole the 2010 election from the Iraqi people because Susan Rice, Joe Biden and others made the determination that they needed Nouri to make good on Barack's 'promise.'


Barack's been out of office since January 2019.  It would be real nice if some of you who pretend to be 'independent' journalists could start to tell the truth because it's really tiring to be the only one willing to talk truth about Iraq on a daily basis.

Back to the article:

“Prime Minister Maliki is highly untrustworthy, Mr. Vice President,” Mattis said. “He’s devious when he talks to us.”
Mattis noted that in the election that year, Maliki had not garnered a majority of the votes, and he seemed to be stonewalling the formation of a new government. The Shiite leader had cultivated relationships with officials in Iran and Syria in the years he spent plotting to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

I haven't read Mattis' book.  But here's where you provide additional perspective if you're going to cover the topic.  US Gen Ray Odierno, right before the 2010 elections were held, raised the issue of what happens if Nouri loses (no one else in the US government thought that was even a possibility) and then refuses to step down as prime minister.  He was ignored.

Then ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill was all in with Nouri.  And Chris' vanity prevented the White House from getting reports and assessments it needed.

It would be months after the election when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did a workaround Chris Hill and got Odierno's warnings and assessments to Barack.  But Susan Rice and Samantha Power would insist only Nouri could deliver US support and ensure that Barack could keep his promise.  Joe Biden sided with the two and Iraq's election was overturned with the US-negotiated Erbil Agreement which gave Nouri his second term.

This was not minor.  And to hear the rabid idiots in the US over the last years cling to the delusion that Russia stole the 2016 US presidential election has been the height of hypocrisy.  Not only did Russia not steal the election, the US government -- led by Barack -- stole the 2010 election in Iraq.  Nouri lost.  The people voted him out.  He refused to step down and for 8 months the country was brought to a political stalemate.  Instead of siding with the Iraqi people, Barack had a contract negotiated that overturned the votes and gave Nouri a second term.

It was in that second term that he became even more oppressive leading to the rise of ISIS.

Back to the article:

 “He looks at our ambassadors and military advisers as impediments to his anti-Sunni agenda,” Mattis told Biden, who was leading the administration's Iraq policy. “He wants to purge or marginalize Sunnis and Kurds from the government.” Mattis said leaders across the Middle East had warned against continuing to throw American support behind Maliki.
Mattis also argued against pulling out precipitately. He said the training wheels shouldn’t suddenly be pulled off the bicycle. “We should slowly inch the wheels up, allowing the Iraqis to wobble but not crash as they slowly pedaled down the path to self-sufficiency,” he said. “If we pulled out too early, I noted, we would have to bring our troops back in.”
The general’s assessment fell on deaf ears.
“Vice President Biden and his assistants listened politely. But as we spoke, I sensed I was making no headway in convincing the administration officials not to support Maliki. It was like talking to people who lived in wooden houses but saw no need for a fire department,” Mattis writes.
“I liked the Vice President,” Mattis writes, even after Biden teased him: “Know why you’re at CENTCOM?” Biden asked him. “Because no one else was dumb enough to take the job.”
“I found him an admirable and amiable man. But he was past the point where he was willing to entertain a ‘good idea.’ He didn’t want to hear more; he wanted our forces out of Iraq. Whatever path led there fastest, he favored,” Mattis writes. “He exuded the confidence of a man whose mind was made up, perhaps even indifferent to considering the consequences were he judging the situation incorrectly.”
Biden reassured Mattis that Maliki wouldn’t eject all American troops from the country.
“Maliki wants us to stick around, because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise,” Biden said. “I’ll bet you my vice presidency.”
Mattis doesn’t say whether he tried to collect on that bet. As he writes, “In October 2011, Prime Minister Maliki and President Obama agreed that all U.S. forces would leave at the end of the year.”
Mattis’ warnings proved prescient, as Maliki, free of American influence, went after Sunni politicians and districts, alienating a third of the country. “Iraq slipped back into escalating violence. It was like watching a car wreck in slow motion,” Mattis writes. A Sunni revolt and a weak Iraqi Army allowed al Qaeda-aligned terrorists to return in 2014, calling themselves the Islamic State.

“It would take many years and tens of thousands of casualties, plus untold misery for millions of innocents, to break ISIS’s geographic hold,” Mattis writes. “All of this was predicted — and preventable.” 

It was preventable.  That's why I spent 2010 screaming here to uphold the vote of the Iraqi people.  They had reject Nouri and Nouri's revenge.  They supported Iraqiya.  That was a new coalition that sprung up.  It was a future path for Iraq.  Iraqiya was open to all, Iraqiya was about an Iraqi identity taking the lead -- not a split of Sunni or Shia.  It was about healing and coming together.  It included women in leadership roles.

And that's how this brand new coalition managed to win the election.

No one wanted to talk about that.  In fact, Quil Lawrence 'reported' on NPR that Nouri had won the election -- reported it before the votes were even counted.  I guess it was hard for NPR to tell too much truth after that.  They sort of painted themselves into the corner, didn't they.

Imagine how much different Iraq would be today if the people's vote in 2010 had been respected.

The National Endowment for Democracy has been polling in Iraq -- as we noted last month -- and the upcoming elections (provincial) are not expected to have a huge turnout.  The voters don't trust the system and are tired of the corruption.   The body is funded by the US government so don't expect it to ask about the 2010 election.  But as we warned over and over in real time -- Patrick Cockburn, I'm looking at you as one of the chief liars in real time while we were telling the truth -- what message would it send to the Iraqi people about voting and democracy if, after they'd risked violence to vote in March 2010, the US government overturned their votes?

It sent a strong message and it's past time that the US press got honest about that.  Instead, most of have tried to pretend that The Erbil Agreement never existed (that would include European Patrick Cockburn).  It's a defining moment in modern day Iraq and the western press works overtime to ignore it.

Yesterday, Mattis appeared on NPR's MORNING EDITION and spoke with Steve Inskeep:

INSKEEP: You describe disagreeing specifically with then-Vice President Joe Biden over the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011 and say that you expected that the U.S. would have to be drawn back in.

 MATTIS: Well, that wasn't my assessment alone. The intelligence community came in. I was briefed, and I still remember one of the young ladies briefing me from the intelligence community. And she outright guaranteed me that if we withdrew all of our troops at the time and on the timeline that was being discussed, we would have to go back in because the enemy would surge and they would become a threat to us again. And that, unfortunately, is exactly what happened.

 INSKEEP: I guess we should describe - Vice President Biden had a difference of opinion with you about the value of the then-Iraqi prime minister and whether he would be supportive of a continued U.S. troop presence. Did Vice President Biden misread the situation in some way?


 MATTIS: You know, all leaders have got to be able to build trust. I did not believe that the Iraqi prime minister was a man who could build trust. And if you can't do that, especially under the stresses that Iraq was going through, it was in a - virtually in a post-combat but pre-reconciliation phase. And we're not always going to be blessed to have a Mandela man type person, like Mandela brought South Africa back together. You're not always going to have that sort of leader. But I felt the man who was in - that we were backing at that time was especially deficient in trust-building ability.


Again, he's speaking of Nouri al-Maliki -- former prime minister of Iraq and forever thug.


Yesterday, Caitlin Yilek (WASHINGTON EXAMINER) noted the topic of Mattis and his book:

 By 2010 the U.S.-led coalition had “at last succeeded in establishing a fragile stability” in Iraq, largely as a result of former President George W. Bush's troop surge of 2007. The Obama administration was dealing with Iraqi premier Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite who had built close ties with Iran during his years opposing Saddam Hussein, who presided over a Sunni-dominated Iraq.
“The National Security staff in the White House believed that Maliki offered a continuity that, in their minds, would facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. troops,” Mattis writes. During a Biden visit to Iraq in August 2010, when he formally ended the U.S. combat mission in the country, Mattis strenuously disagreed with the Obama administration's assessment of Maliki, telling Biden: "Prime Minister Maliki is highly untrustworthy, Mr. Vice President. He’s devious when he talks to us.”
Mattis continued: “He looks at our ambassadors and military advisers as impediments to his anti-Sunni agenda. He wants to purge or marginalize Sunnis and Kurds from the government.” Mattis said Sunni leaders across the region had warned against continued U.S. backing of Maliki.
By his account, Mattis told Biden that withdrawing U.S. troops prematurely would be akin to suddenly pulling the training wheels off a bicycle. “We should slowly inch the wheels up, allowing the Iraqis to wobble but not crash as they slowly pedaled down the path to self-sufficiency,” he said. “If we pulled out too early, I noted, we would have to bring our troops back in.”

The general’s assessment was ignored by Biden. The vice president, Mattis argues, was not listening to the counsel of a 40-year Marine who had long experience of war, terrorism, and insurgencies, and knew the cost of politics taking precedence over strategic thinking.


Will we ever get to an honest discussion of what the US did in 2010?  Patrick Cockburn is promoted by ANTIWAR.COM as the authority on Iraq.  But he's anti-Arab and he's wrong over and over and over.  He's wrong his reports (the murder of a young woman in Bully Boy Bush's second term), he's wrong in his assessments, he's wrong.  Scott Horton -- host of ANTIWAR.COM's radio program -- would not have made such a fool of himself on air if he hadn't thought Cockburn knew what he was talking about.  Horton ended up basically blowing Nouri on air week after week because of Cockburn's assessment.

Only in a US unconcerned about the Arab world could that have happened.  In the Arab world, they know Patrick Cockburn is anti-Sunni.  Arab social media has long documented that reality.  But in the US, people have looked the other way and offered excuses -- Oh, he's Alex Cockburn's brother, oh, he's Laura Flanders' uncle, oh . . . He's awful is what he is.  And a lot of Laura's assessments were wrong.  She doesn't talk about Iraq today.  But back when the war could get you listeners, she did.  And most of her assessments were wrong. She paid too much attention to her uncle and too little to reality..

Patrick Cockburn is one of the biggest problems with Iraq today.  He has gotten things wrong over and over and did so because he is prejudiced against Arabs.  He has tried to lead Americans -- and Scott Horton assisted him there -- into rooting for the government of Iran.  In what world?  The Iranian people are a dignified people and wonderful, I'm sure.  Their government?  No.  And I can say that and I can still oppose war on Iran.  If we can stop being childish and actually grow the hell up, we might be able to have honest conversations.

And on war on Iran, you might want to be aware of this.


  1.  Sep 2
Iraqi Shiite Militia Leader Abu Alaa Al-Walai: If U.S.-Iran War Breaks out, We Will Fight alongside Iran, All Americans in Iraq Will Be Held Hostages by the Resistance; We Could Easily Send Drone to Strike (U.S.) Embassy
/>
The media could not be played.
35 replies138 retweets106 likes
 
 


Last week came news of a new method of delivery for bombs: cattle.  Two cow bombs resulted in one civilian being injured on Saturday. Today, reports on farms. AFP reports:

One man lost his uncle. Another is mourning for two sons. Farmers and herders in Iraq’s Baiji say mines left by [ISIS] turned their beloved orchards into killing fields.


The improvised explosive devices, planted by militants trying to fend off Iraqi troops in 2015, have also discouraged scores of families from returning to their battered farming towns around Baiji, in the north of the country.

Today, Chris Forrester (ADVANCED TELEVISION) notes:

 The Arabic Al Hurra TV channel has been hit with a 3 month broadcasting ban.  The channel is alleged to have transmitted a controversial 12 minute report on corruption within Islamic religious bodies. The programme was transmitted on Sunday.


It's not the Arabic AL HURRA -- it's the Arabic language AL HURRA.  As we explained last night:


It's the equivalent of VOICE OF AMERICA.  And that cute little name?  "US Agency for Global Media"?  It's the Board of Governors responsible for the propaganda broadcast by VOA.  In addition, it's also the US Congress that funds them.

So what di[d] they broadcast?  This:

The 12-minute documentary broadcast Saturday claimed that Sunni and Shiite Muslim authorities were misusing state funds and had suspicious ties to armed factions.
The Sunni endowment denied the allegations in the report and said it would take legal steps against the channel. The Shiite endowment could not immediately be reached for comment.


Is it true or just more efforts by the US government to pit Sunni against Shia?

New content at THIRD:


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)