Saturday, October 22, 2016

Spineless Michael Moore

I read a Michael Moore book once -- STUPID WHITE MEN? -- and got to the chapter on Oprah.

I was already feeling ripped off.

When he started saying Democrats should run Oprah for president, I was thinking, "Forget it."

I'm sure she's a nice person but (a) she's a closet case who won't admit who she really is, (b) she supported the Iraq War, (c) she allowed Judith Miller to promote the Iraq War on her show, (d) when the audience questioned Judith Miller Oprah started griping at them, etc.

So Moore has an iTunes flick out.

And he's promoting it.

And is he going the Caitlin Jenner route?

He doesn't look like a man anymore.

I know he and his wife divorced.

But he looks weird.

For a guy, he looks weird.

He's such a little whore too.

He was all against Hillary in the primary and now he can't stop nuzzling her crotch.

He has no spine.

He has no integrity.

He has no ethics.

He's just a little bitch boy.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, October 21, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, another US service member dies in Iraq, the Islamic State mounts a counter-attack, the US media wastes our time on whether Donald Trump will or won't contest election results (when there are no results yet to even contest), the Emmys are rigged, and much more.

American service member has died from wounds sustained in an IED explosion in northern Iraq, U.S. military says.

Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Susannah George (AP) report, "U.S. officials said the American service member died Thursday from wounds sustained in a roadside bomb explosion north of Mosul. More than 100 U.S. special operations forces are embedded with Iraqi units in the offensive, and hundreds more are playing a support role in staging bases."

Aren't we all glad US President Barack Obama swore that US troops would not be in combat in Iraq?

Guess he forgot to pass that message on to the Islamic State.

US troops are in combat -- despite Barack's lies.

Make no mistake, we are currently at war in Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has never bought into those lies and has always insisted publicly that, of course, this is combat.

Politicians need to stop lying to the American people.

Let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot:

Iraq was raised [during the debate].


[WALLACE:] The Iraqi offensive to take back Mosul has begun. If they are successful in pushing ISIS out of that city and out of all of Iraq, the question then becomes, what happens the day after? And that's something that whichever of you ends up -- whoever of you ends up as president is going to have to confront.
Will you put U.S. troops into that vacuum to make sure that ISIS doesn't come back or isn't replaced by something even worse? Secretary Clinton, you go first in this segment. You have two minutes.

CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.

Will you put US troops into that vacuum?

She doesn't answer.

She says no US troops "as an occupying force."

Hillary, like Bill before her, is known for weasel words.



She should have been asked to define what she meant.

If you didn't grasp the cost of spin yesterday morning, maybe you will today.

They shouldn't be allowed to spin, they should speak honestly -- or be called out.

. Presidential Town Hall With !!! More info here:
The Young Turks Presidential Town Hall With Jill Stein!!!
The Young Turks are hosting a Presidential Town Hall with Jill Stein at YouTube Space LA on Friday October 21st at 3p PT / 6p ET. More info here:

That YOUNG TURKS event is today.

Let's stay with the Wednesday debate for a second.

As many Republicans (at least those on TV) flee the GOP for the Democratic Party in order to support conservative War Hawk Hillary Clinton (who stated in the debate she would have voted to ban late term abortions -- a fact no one is discussing except for Rebecca in 'hillary would ban late term abortions'), pundits gasp or cackle this may be the end of the Republican Party.

It may be.

Which would be a reason to vote Green -- unless you're hoping that the GOP's demise means only one party.

As the Democratic Party becomes closer and closer to the Republican Party, a new party is needed.

Just as this could be the year the GOP goes down (I don't think so but it could be), this could be the year a new major party emerges: Green.

Think about all the gas baggery you've seen on so-called 'news' programs on cable about the GOP's demise.

If you're going to gas bag over that topic, then the topic that goes with it is what replaces it.

Only that hasn't prompted gas baggery.

Do we have a media or do we have a Democratic Party megaphone?

This morning Mika is again blathering on about how Donald Trump, in the debate Wednesday night, refused to say if he will accept the results.

This a non-issue.

Let's say Donald understood the question and its meanings and is planning on not accepting the results if he loses.

So what?

The Electoral College will name the winner regardless, that person will be sworn in.

Doesn't really matter what he accepts.

Hillary grandstanded on the issue as always.

But she was wrong, Al Gore did not accept the results.

That's why he filed challenges.

Yes, after the Supreme Court ruling -- one month and five days after the election -- Al Gore did concede to Bully Boy Bush.

But Al did not publicly accept the results until that moment.

'But the results were in dispute!'

Yeah, whine to someone who didn't contribute to Al Gore (I did and to the recount fund) and to someone who doesn't refer to Bully Boy Busy as BBB or "White House occupant" -- check the archives, I have never applied the p-word to BBB.  I will say "President Barack Obama," I do not use the p-wod with BBB.

The results could be disputed again.

Chris Wallace did not do a great job with his questions.

The one on Syria is probably only the most notable one.

I would hope that most of us could agree Donald Trump is not politically astute.

He looked like he felt he was being cornered (and he may have been) and may have seen the question as if the vote was close he was promising away his right to challenge it (in the manner Al Gore did).

I have no idea.

But I do know that it doesn't matter if any candidate accepts the results or not.

This isn't a live award show where Donald Trump can run up onstage and Kanye -- the electoral college's verdict will be final and that person will be sworn in next January.

That's how it works.

And all the gas baggery from the likes of Mika are attempts to stuff junk 'news' down your throats instead of exploring real issues because whether Donald Trump will or won't accept the results is completely meaningless.

Didn't plan to get into this, but dropping back to Wednesday's debate and "rigged."

Donald Trump was accused by Hillary Clinton of saying that the Emmys were rigged?

Did he say it?

I don't know.

Here's the Emmy response:

Rest assured, the are not rigged.

Kate McKinnon is a one-note comic.  She's not that funny -- as she demonstrated in GHOSTBUSTERS.  Leslie Jones is on the same show -- SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE.  Kate, not Leslie, got nominated.  Shouldn't have been that way.  Last February, Ava and I noted:

People need to earn these nominations.

Sofia Vergara (MODERN FAMILY)

Sofia's never won.  She's been nominated many times. Her character Gloria?  She has changed over the course of the series and Sofia has repeatedly altered her performance.


Leslie Jones is a constant laugh getter in SNL skits.  She's not given as much variety in the characters she's allowed to play but she makes every character convincing.

Zoe Lister-Jones (LIFE IN PIECES)

Any life in this sub-standard sitcom comes from Zoe Lister-Jones who flings lines in one direction and her body in another while hitting one zany comic high note after another.

Jenifer Lewis (BLACKISH)

As Dre's overly devoted mother and Bow's antagonist, Jenifer fills a number of roles in each plot while still managing to deliver one manic laugh after another.

Chelsea Peretti (BROOKLYN 99)

Gina clearly does not belong in a squad room but Chelsea's performance is so wonderful, you keep praying no one notices.

Why was Kate even nominated?  She is a one note actress, a one note comic.

Audiences do not like her in film.

Let's look at another piece we did in February on the Emmys, this time not for supporting actress but lead actress in a comedy:

1) Patricia Heaton

The two-time Emmy winner has never been nominated for her work on THE MIDDLE.  Seven nominations in her career and not one for her long running comedy hit?  As we noted some time ago, she more than deserves a nomination, she's doing her best work ever.  We will never agree with Patricia's politics but this award is supposed to be for acting and she's more than earned a nomination.

2) America Ferrera

Proving UGLY BETTY wasn't a fluke, America's back in SUPERSTORE.  Back and delightful in the sitcom.

3) Anna Farris

Playing the lead in MOM is no easy feat.  The show can get very intense and then hilarity can come out of that.  This is not cookie-cutter comedy.  And Farris is outstanding.

4) Lily Tomlin/Jane Fonda

Let's be real, it's going to be hard for both women to be nominated.  They both deserve it but The Emmys are so horny for HBO, they seldom note the worthy elsewhere.  Lily was nominated last go round and would have been a worthy winner.  Jane was good in season one but, in season two, she's not coming to play, she's bringing it.  Either actress is a solid nominee.

5) Tracee Ellis Ross

How did they manage to rob her of the Emmy last year?

Who knows, but they did.

Are the Emmys rigged?

Leslie Jones didn't get nominated.

Tracee Ellis Ross didn't win.

African-American women in comedy?

They've been around for over sixty years.

How many African-American women have won Emmys for comedy?


Jackee Harris won supporting for 227, Isabel Sanford won lead for THE JEFFERSONS.

And before anyone wonders, both actresses only won one time.

Who got the Emmy for best lead this year?

Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

And they year before?

Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

And the year before?

Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

And the year before --

She's received it five years in a row.


Where she doesn't play a character, she goofs her way through a skit or sketch.

It's not acting.

But she's White.

Nell Carter, to name only one African-American woman, never won an Emmy for her sitcom -- despite it airing in a "death of sitcom" period (meaning there were far fewer sitcoms on the air).

Julia can win five times in a row and, in it's entire history, the Emmys have only handed out one Emmy for a comedy lead actress to an African-American woman (Isabel Sanford) and only one Emmy for a comedy supporting actress to an African-American woman (Jackee Harry)?

227 lasted five seasons, THE JEFFERSONS lasted 11 seasons and Marla Gibbs (who played Mary on 227 and Florence on THE JEFFERSONS) never won an Emmy.

But Julia has now won seven for acting (her five for VEEP, one for SEINFELD, one for THE NEW ADVENTURES OF OLD CHRISTINE)?  Five for the same show that has aired five seasons?

Five in a row.

Julia is the portrait of White entitlement.  As are the Emmys.

So don't go insisting that they aren't rigged.  There is systematic racism at the Emmys -- from the nominations to the awards themselves.

And that's before we get to how they are awarded.

With the Academy Awards, it goes to whomever gets the most votes.

The Emmys are awarded by 'judging panels.'

In other words, the entire body of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences is too stupid to pick a winner so they need 'panels.'

This helps perpetuate racism as the statistic for winners (and nominees) demonstrate.

In Iraq, the battle for Mosul continues.  The city was seized by the Islamic State in June of 2014.  Two years and four months later, attempts are finally made to liberate or 'liberate' it.  James Cogan (WSWS) reports:

Iraqi Army units and troops of the autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG), backed by US and allied air power, special forces and “advisors,” continue to push toward the Islamic State (ISIS)-held northern city of Mosul and the estimated 1.5 million civilians trapped within its confines. In the past 24 hours, Kurdish forces claimed to have captured villages and towns to the city’s north and east, while Iraqi Army units advanced from the south.
The assault is unfolding amid uncritical media coverage, with embedded journalists filing reports that in general laud the success of Kurdish and Iraqi forces in the face of supposed fanatical resistance and suicide attacks by ISIS defenders. Vast columns of black smoke rising over the battle zones are universally attributed to ISIS igniting oil wells and mounds of tyres to obscure their movements from aerial detection and attack.
No official estimates of Kurdish or Iraqi government casualties have been released, nor figures on ISIS losses. The US military confirmed yesterday that one of its special forces soldiers was killed by a roadside bomb to the north of Mosul.
Next to nothing is being reported about the devastation and casualties caused by US and allied air strikes on targets within the urban reaches of the city itself. Instead, the media is full of accusations that ISIS is using people as “human shields”—justifying civilian deaths in advance. American, British, Australian, French, Canadian and Jordanian bombers, jet fighters, helicopter gunships, drones and surveillance aircraft are involved in the air assault.
One indication of the destruction being inflicted was an October 19 report by the British Broadcasting Corporation that the University of Mosul, once one of the best equipped in the Middle East, is in ruin. A source stated: “The university is completely inoperative and air strikes have made it a difficult place to go. Most of the buildings have been brought down, it’s virtually gone.”

US and allied military commanders project that operations to recapture Mosul will last as long as three months. This suggests that much of the city will be reduced to rubble and the predominantly Sunni Arab civilian population will suffer horrific casualties from the bombing, starvation and disease.

This go round, unlike with Falluja and Ramadi, ISIS hasn't merely retreated from the city, it's launched a counter-attack -- on Kirkuk.

Fighting still going on in in what seems to be a pretty significant counterattack

BBC NEWS reports:

Islamic State (IS) militants have mounted a ferocious counter-attack in north Iraq, killing at least 19 people in and around the city of Kirkuk.
They attacked government buildings, killing at least six police officers, and a power station under construction, where 13 employees died, officials say.
Twelve IS fighters also reportedly died and fighting seems to be continuing.

As the same thing is done each time, is it really a surprise that this go-round the Islamic State would mount a counter-attack?

The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley -- updated:

  • iraq

    Friday, October 21, 2016

    Sell Out Sanders

    Bernie Sanders -- an elderly fake ass.

    Remember when we hoped he might be more than he was?

    When we placed our future in his hands?

    And he betrayed us.

    And he's betrayed us again.

    Barry Grey (WSWS) reports:

     WikiLeaks' release of transcripts of speeches by Hillary Clinton to Wall Street firms has thoroughly exposed the servility of the Democratic presidential candidate to the banks and big business, as well as her socially reactionary and militaristic agenda. As for the progressive, let alone socialist, pretensions of Bernie Sanders and his "political revolution," the publication of this material is, if anything, even more shattering.
    As Sanders continues to hustle votes for the favored candidate of Wall Street, the military/intelligence complex, and much of the Republican Party establishment, while saying nothing about her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other financial malefactors, there is about him a palpable odor of dishonesty and cynicism.
    Since the release of the Clinton transcripts last Friday, Sanders has given numerous stump speeches in Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. His only acknowledgment of the transcripts was a two-sentence statement that was as pathetic as it was absurd: “The job of the progressive movement now is to look forward not backward. No matter what Secretary Clinton may have said years ago behind closed doors, what’s important today is that millions of people stand up and demand that the Democratic Party implement the most progressive platform in the history of the country.”
    Leaving aside the bromide about the Democratic platform--a conventional, pro-war document that, as Sanders well knows, will be consigned to the dustbin well before a Clinton administration even takes office--it is instructive to compare this statement with what Sanders was saying during the Democratic primaries, when he was challenging the multi-millionaire ex-senator and secretary of state for the nomination.

    At the Democratic debate on February 4, he called on Clinton to release the transcripts of three speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs in 2013, shortly after she left the State Department, for which she was paid a total of $675,000. This demand became a major part of his bid to present himself as the spokesman for working people against Wall Street and the “billionaire class.”

    They were so important to him once upon a time, remember?

    Now not a word.

    And the taped comments of her insulting his supporters and he rushes forward to say she's right.

    He's a fake ass.

    He's a coward.

    And he's a has been.

    Bye-bye Bernie, hope you got a good seat in hell when you sold your soul to the devil.

    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

    Thursday, October 20, 2016.  Chaos and violence continues in Iraq as we focus on Wednesday night's debate.

    In the time since last night's debate between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a few important themes have developed.

    First, the media wants war with Syria -- wants it very badly -- and they're already drooling over (and egging on) the renewed conflict between Russia and the US.

    Elaine observed:

    After the debate on ABC NEWS, Martha Raddatz was on her attack of Russia kick.

    She felt the need to trash Donald Trump.

    "He's doubting our intelligence agencies!"

    You mean the same ones who cooked the books on Iraq, Martha?

    Better question, trashy Martha.

    You're a journalist.

    You're supposed to be skeptical.

    You're supposed to question.

    Why can't you do your job?

    Oh, that's right, you're a tool of imperialism.

    Martha Raddatz had a freak out on air because Donald Trump dared to question the supposed conclusion of our intelligence agencies.

    Poor Martha.

    Someone give her a happy pill so she can go back to dreamland.

    No longer is it just Martha Raddatz, unable to reach a clitoral orgasm without this war, pimping it during a debate, it's everyone after war and more war.

    Talk show host Gayle King couldn't get enough of it last night on CBS' post coverage.  And by the way, hosting a daytime talk show and being Oprah's 'gal pal' really don't speak to why you're invited to opine on TV.  CBS has had the weakest staff doing post debate coverage throughout the debates.

    On MSNBC's MORNING JOE today, they were whining that Donald Trump would not give them the war they wanted.

    And they were editing clips to alter what took place.

    Let's go to the transcript of the debate (via THE WASHINGTON POST) first and we'll "***" the section MSNBC edited out this morning -- and the moderator was FOX NEWS' Chris Wallace:

    WALLACE: Let's turn to Aleppo. Mr. Trump, in the last debate, you were both asked about the situation in the Syrian city of Aleppo. And I want to follow up on that, because you said several things in that debate which were not true, sir. You said that Aleppo has basically fallen. In fact, there -- in fact, there are... 

    TRUMP: It's a catastrophe. I mean...

    WALLACE: It's a catastrophe, but there...

    TRUMP: ... it's a mess.

    WALLACE: There are a quarter of...

    TRUMP: Have you seen it? Have you seen it?

    WALLACE: Sir...

    TRUMP: Have you seen what's happening to Aleppo?

    WALLACE: Sir, if I may finish my question...

    TRUMP: OK, so it hasn't fallen. Take a look at it.

    WALLACE: Well, there are a quarter of a million people still living there and being slaughtered.

    TRUMP: That's right. And they are being slaughtered...

    WALLACE: Yes.

    TRUMP: ... because of bad decisions.

    WALLACE: If I may just finish here, and you also said that -- that Syria and Russia are busy fighting ISIS. In fact, they have been the ones who've been bombing and shelling eastern Aleppo, and they just announced a humanitarian pause, in effect, admitting that they have been bombing and shelling Aleppo. Would you like to clear that up, sir?

    TRUMP: Well, Aleppo is a disaster. It's a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from the -- from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at Aleppo. It is so sad when you see what's happened.
    And a lot of this is because of Hillary Clinton, because what's happened is, by fighting Assad, who turned out to be a lot tougher than she thought, and now she's going to say, oh, he loves Assad, she's -- he's just much tougher and much smarter than her and Obama. And everyone thought he was gone two years ago, three years ago. He -- he aligned with Russia.
    He now also aligned with Iran, who we made very powerful. We gave them $150 billion back. We give them $1.7 billion in cash. I mean, cash. Bundles of cash as big as this stage. We gave them $1.7 billion.

    Now they have -- he has aligned with Russia and with Iran. They don't want ISIS, but they have other things, because we're backing -- we're backing rebels. We don't know who the rebels are. We're giving them lots of money, lots of everything. We don't know who the rebels are. And when and if -- and it's not going to happen, because you have Russia and you have Iran now. But if they ever did overthrow Assad, you might end up with -- as bad as Assad is, and he's a bad guy, but you may very well end up with worse than Assad.
    If she did nothing, we'd be in much better shape. And this is what's caused the great migration, where she's taking in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees, who probably in many cases -- not probably, who are definitely...
    WALLACE: Let me...
    TRUMP: ... in many cases, ISIS-aligned, and we now have them in our country, and wait until you see -- this is going to be the great Trojan horse. And wait until you see what happens in the coming years. Lots of luck, Hillary. Thanks a lot for doing a great job.
    WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, you have talked about -- and in the last debate and again today -- that you would impose a no-fly zone to try to protect the people of Aleppo and to stop the killing there. President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it's going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict.
    And General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you're going to get into a war -- his words -- with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is, if you impose a no-fly zone -- first of all, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?


    CLINTON: Well, Chris, first of all, I think a no-fly zone could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict. I'm well aware of the really legitimate concerns that you have expressed from both the president and the general.

    This would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.

    It's cute the way they disappeared criticism of Hillary's no-fly zone.

    It's also cute how certain whores were thrilled by Hillary's refusal to answer questions.

    Let's talk Chuck Todd.

    First off, what is NBC's obsession with balding, unattractive males.

    TV is a visual medium.

    If you don't have the news chops -- and Matt Lauer and Chuck Todd do not -- then you don't belong on TV unless you're visually appealing.  It's a visual medium.

    Chuck Todd needs to shave the head bald or leave TV.

    As it is, he not only looks ridiculous but those sparse and fine hairs look unwashed.  (He's probably washing them but that's what the camera does to people with his condition.)

    He never should have been allowed to continue as host of MEET THE PRESS.  It would have made more sense to toss it to Tim's son Luke Russert, for example.  Tim was not GQ perfection, he was attractive and he did have chemistry with the camera.

    MEET THE PRESS continues to struggle because with Chuck's eyes and the shady look his current hair situation gives him, he looks like a con man.  That's why viewers leave.  Shave the head or fire his ass.

    On NBC, in the aftermath of the debate, there was Chuck Todd exclaiming Hillary was wonderful because she talked about what she wanted to.

    She did not answer questions -- repeatedly.

    And a journalist is applauding this?

    Here's one example.

    [WALLACE:] Secretary Clinton, during your 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, you promised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with your dealing with the Clinton Foundation while you were secretary of state, but e-mails show that donors got special access to you. Those seeking grants for Haiti relief were considered separately from non-donors, and some of those donors got contracts, government contracts, taxpayer money.
    Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee? And why isn't what happened and what went on between you and the Clinton Foundation, why isn't it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?

    CLINTON: Well, everything I did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values. The State Department has said that. I think that's been proven.
    But I am happy, in fact I'm thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation, because it is a world-renowned charity and I am so proud of the work that it does. You know [. . .]

    Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee?

    She refused to answer.

    She refused to talk about the pledge itself -- and, as I pointed out when her hacks were defending her on the possible conflicts of interest, it wasn't no conflict of interest.

    A conflict of interest is unethical.

    Every government employee is supposed to avoid that.

    The position she was being given was so important that she had to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest -- which she clearly did not.

    Chuck Todd needs to stop pretending he's a judge on AMERICAN IDOL and start dealing with reality.  She wants to be president.

    Repeatedly, she refused to answer direct questions.

    Her 'pivoting' that Todd found so admirable is not a quality a democracy wants from a leader.

    Another reality, the corporate media is determined to bury WikiLeaks -- in part to protect her -- as they have done throughout the last two years.

    But also to protect themselves.  People paid to be journalists that crossed lines and are exposed by WikiLeaks include Donna Brazile, Matthew Lee, Glenn Thrush and John Harwood.

    However, the most important reason the WikiLeak revelations are so offensive to the press is it exposes that for nearly two years they have failed to do their job.

    They have failed.

    They have allowed the Democratic Party's primary to be rigged and denied it and ridiculed those making the claims and yet we know it's true now, we know the DNC favored one candidate (Clinton) and worked to bury Bernie Sanders.

    They have failed.

    All the ridiculous David Brocks and Bob Somerbys have bitched, moaned and whined about how easy the press was to Donald Trump in the primaries -- compared to other GOP candidates -- and we now know that was treatment which was promoted by Hillary's campaign because they wanted her to run against Donald all along.

    The media has been filled with whores ready to sell out their viewers and readers and listeners.

    No surprise that they want to shut down WikiLeaks.

    But here's the thing, in an open society, revelations are discussed.

    Not by blaming Vladimir Putin but by addressing what you and your staff wrote in those e-mails.

    Donald's right to be skeptical of Hillary's constant whining "Russia did it!"

    She doesn't know a damn thing.

    Instead of addressing the e-mails, Hillary fell back, yet again, on "Blame Russia" (who knew SOUTHPARK had come up with a follow up?):

     But you are very clearly quoting from WikiLeaks. And what's really important about WikiLeaks is that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet.
    This has come from the highest levels of the Russian government, clearly, from Putin himself, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election.

    Let's turn to Iraq.

    This might get buried but Trump accused the Iraqi military of going into Mosul to make Hillary Clinton look good. Quite a thing to say.

    No, let's not let this get buried.

    We already noted CBS has a disaster pool of non-journalists who don't know what they're doing.

    Sopan Deb is one.

    Let's not bury this because Deb is either illiterate or unread.

    CBS pays him to cover the race.

    So why are his panties in a wad over what Donald Trump said?

    Dropping back to the August 1st snapshot:

    POLITICO asserts that US President Barack Obama is planning an October Surprise to influence the outcome of this year's presidential election.

    For those late to the topic, refer to Robert Parry's reporting on the 1980 October Surprise at CONSORTIUM NEWS.

    POLITICO'S Mark Perry reports that Barack is planning to start the battle to retake Mosul in early October and, "If Mosul is retaken, it would both mark a major political triumph for Barack Obama and likely benefit his party’s nominee at the polls, Hillary Clinton, undercutting Republican claims that the Obama administration has failed to take off the gloves against the Islamic State."

    And Trump did not accuse the Iraqi military of that [he was speaking of the White House: "The only reason they did it is because she is running for the office of president and they wanted her to look good."].

    Sopan Deb is real good at going with Hillary's spin.

    He's just not good at reporting.

    And, scary thought here, Donald Trump might be better read than the reporters covering him.

    Iraq was raised.


    [WALLACE:] The Iraqi offensive to take back Mosul has begun. If they are successful in pushing ISIS out of that city and out of all of Iraq, the question then becomes, what happens the day after? And that's something that whichever of you ends up -- whoever of you ends up as president is going to have to confront.
    Will you put U.S. troops into that vacuum to make sure that ISIS doesn't come back or isn't replaced by something even worse? Secretary Clinton, you go first in this segment. You have two minutes.

    CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do. In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.

    Will you put US troops into that vacuum?

    She doesn't answer.

    She says no US troops "as an occupying force."

    Hillary, like Bill before her, is known for weasel words.



    She should have been asked to define what she meant.

    More to the point, she should have been forced to answer what can be done the day after because nothing has been done to prepare for that -- not for the refugee crisis, not for the ongoing political crisis.

    The following community sites updated:

  • iraq