Tuesday, July 11, 2017

NYT still writes copy for the government and passes it off as 'reporting'

From John Stauber:

Is there a political butt that hasn't kissed yet? Not many! 😂

Of course not, John Nichols is a flim flam man (hat tip to Laura Nyro).

John Nichols is the biggest fake ass my side has ever seen among the pundit class -- and that's really saying something.

John Nichols is worthless.

So are the idiots still screaming about Russia.  Now it's dog pile on Donald Trump Jr.  Patrick Martin (WSWS) notes:

Later on Sunday, the Times posted a second front-page report based on Trump Jr.’s confirmation of the meeting and his description of his own motivation for agreeing to it, claiming that the meeting “points to the central question in federal investigations of the Kremlin’s meddling in the presidential election: whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. The accounts of the meeting represent the first public indication that at least some in the campaign were willing to accept Russian help.”
Seeking to imply a much greater significance than the story appears to have, the Times report went on to say that “while President Trump has been dogged by revelations of undisclosed meetings between his associates and the Russians, the episode at Trump Tower is the first such confirmed private meeting involving members of his inner circle during the campaign—as well as the first one known to have included his eldest son.”
The report is not the result of any investigative journalism on the newspaper’s part, but a leak from within the federal government. The newspaper noted, “The fact of the Trump Tower meeting was disclosed to government officials in recent days, when Mr. Kushner, who is also a senior White House aide, filed a revised version of a form required to obtain a security clearance.”
In other words, Kushner filed a revised statement of all his calls and meetings with foreigners during the campaign and the postelection transition, as required for his White House security clearance, adding the meeting with the Russian lawyer that occurred some 13 months ago. This information was then relayed by unnamed sources within the intelligence agencies to the New York Times, which promptly put this intelligence bulletin on its front page.
The insubstantial nature of this “revelation” was no barrier to sensationalized reporting on many of the Sunday television programs, particularly NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where former CIA Director John Brennan had been lined up as a principal interviewee.
Brennan denounced the Trump-Putin meeting, held Friday on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. The ex-CIA chief seized on Trump’s opening words, in which he declared it “an honor” to meet with Putin. “An honor to meet the individual who carried out the assault against our election?” Brennan asked. “To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say.”

On Brennan, Ava and C.I. worked him into their piece on QUANTICO:

If you missed it, John Brennan declared Sunday on NBC's always laughable MEET THE PRESS that US President Donald Trump was "dishonorable" to say it was an "honor" to meet Russian President Vladmir Putin.

We bring it up because he was the CIA director -- the last one under Barack Obama -- and he had his own way of dealing with Congress.

In 2014, Conor Friedersdorf (THE ATLANTIC) noted:

When John Brennan assured the country that the CIA hadn't improperly monitored the Senate team that compiled a report on Bush-era torture, he fed us false information. That much is clear from Thursday's news that "the C.I.A. secretly monitored a congressional committee charged with supervising its activities." Either the CIA director was lying or he was unaware of grave missteps at the agency he leads. There are already calls for his resignation or firing from Senator Mark UdallTrevor TimmDan Froomkin, and Andrew Sullivan, plus a New York Times editorial airing his ouster as a possibility.

And in 2012, Micah Zenko (FOREIGN POLICY) documented Brennan's repeated struggle with honesty:

Stephanopoulos: "Do you stand by the statement you have made in the past that, as effective as they have been, they have not killed a single civilian? That seems hard to believe." 
Brennan: "What I said was that over a period of time before my public remarks that we had no information about a single civilian, a noncombatant being killed. Unfortunately, in war, there are casualties, including among the civilian population.… And unfortunately, sometimes you have to take life to save lives." (This Week with George Stephanopoulos, April 29, 2012) 
In his public comments, Brennan is clear that the Obama administration endorses a drone-first eliminationist strategy for dealing with al Qaeda — and any "military-age males" nearby. This requires a tremendous amount of killing. In June 2011, Brennan claimed: "There hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop." He later, however, provided a statement to the New York Times that the newspaper said "adjusted the wording of his earlier comment": "Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq." 
Brennan did not clarify what constituted "credible evidence," but as Justin Elliott and I myself quickly pointed out, there were many public reports — from Pakistani and Yemeni reporters and anonymous administration officials — of civilians killed by U.S. drone strikes. Either Brennan did not receive the same reports of civilian casualties as other administration officials did (an implausible notion), he lacks Internet access to read these anonymous comments (equally implausible because Brennan closely responds to critics of targeted killings in his following media appearances), or he was lying. Regardless, his belief in the infallibility of the find-fix-finish cycle defies an understanding of the inherent flaws and limitations of even the most precise uses of lethal force. 

Stupid enough to attack Donald as "dishonorable" for those reasons but, more to the point, who the hell is this undemocratic, government subverting piece of filth to call anyone "dishonorable"?

He belongs in prison.

Time for a crackdown on the TIMES.

What a hideous paper.

And the Hillary crowd embraced it because they never gave  a damn about the Iraq War.

THat's why they voted for War Whore Hillary.

ANd why they rushed to subscribe to THE NEW YORK TIMES -- didn't matter about Judith Miller or Michael Gordon or lying a nation into war, they were down with that.

The paper is nothing but a mouthpiece for a certain extra-governmental group.

This really is start to feel like JFK -- by the way, THE TIMES was against him before he was assassinated as well.  Did you know that?

No, they bloody their hands but bury the truth.

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

Tuesday, July 11, 2017.

So is it day 267 of The Mosul Slog or is the operation wrapped up?

Yesterday, Iraq's prime minister Hayder al-Abadi again strutted around Mosul and declared that the battle was over.


Link to headline article

This despite Bram Janssen (AP) reporting:

Sporadic clashes continued Tuesday in Mosul, a day after Iraq’s prime minister declared “total victory” over the Islamic State group and at least one airstrike hit the Old City neighborhood that was the scene of the fierce battle’s final days.

A plume of smoke rose into the air from the strike as IS mortar shells landed near Iraqi positions and heavy gunfire could be heard on the western edge of the Old City.

If Hayder wants to call it a win, guess it's over -- even if fighting continues.


But Lt Gen Stephen Townsend has warned the Government will have to take further steps to reach out to the Sunni population of the country to stop regional tensions causing further conflict.
He said: "If we're to keep... ISIS 2.0 from emerging, the Iraqi government is going to have to do something pretty significantly different.
"They're going to have to reach out and reconcile with the Sunni population, and make them feel like their government in Baghdad represents them."

He is correct and, sadly, nothing's been done on that for the past three years.

The US government could drop bombs on Iraq, they just couldn't urge diplomacy.

For so many, Iraqi is nothing but a political football.  Witness this garbage:

Replying to 
Iraq confirmed that the victory in Mosul was thanks to Obama's Training programs. THANKS OBAMA!!

Thanks Obama?

Barack Obama is a War Criminal the same as Bully Boy Bush.

(The same as Donald Trump will probably end his term being.)

"Impeach Donald Trump" is an account by an idiot who never paid attention to reality.

1) Barack overturned the 2010 elections to install Nouri al-Maliki in a second term as prime minister.  There are few observers of Iraq who do not admit what a disaster that was and how it led to the rise of the Islamic State.

Forget that it sent the wrong message about democracy.

Forget that Nouri was already known to run secret prisons and torture chambers.

Yes, two years later, when Barack won re-election, he did refuse to take Nouri's phone call (fobbing it off on Vice President Joe Biden) but let's not mistake that for bravery or leadership.

2) Training?


Do you not know how many Iraqi troops checked out in the middle of battle?  Do you not know what defeated the thousands of Islamic State members?

Total destruction of Mosul.

That was the cost that was paid in the end.

We didn't have a conversation about that ever.

We weren't allowed to question the mind-set of "to save the village, we had to burn the village."

But if you want to argue training, "Thanks Obama"?

I'm sorry Barack and Hillary were the ones who couldn't sell Iraq on training in 2011.

Or did you miss that?

Or the money wasted for training and the new police academy built that was not used or all the training facilities that the State Dept was going to be over for training that ended up being turned over to the Iraqi government?

Oh, don't know what I'm talking about?

That's because you've had your head up your ass for over a decade.

Your stupidity is not my problem.

I attended those Congressional hearings and reported on them here.

Democrat Gary Ackernman was a hero in those hearings.

It's your loss for not knowing how he pressed for answers.

But that's on you, not me.

I'm sure you can tell me what scent Hillary wore to what fundraiser and other useless s**t that fan club members know.

Amnesty says Iraq and allies violated international law in Mosul battle

And they are correct.

But rah-rah, let's rush to use Iraq as a political football again.

Who cares about the Iraqi people, right?

Who cares about their continued suffering?

Let's rush to declare it a 'win' for whichever political party we're pimping.

Some people are beyond disgusting.

If you're response to  the destruction in Iraq is to cheer "yea!" for someone who inflicted the damage, you need to take a serious look at yourself.

CBS THIS MORNING reports another development regarding ISIS.

Eli Watkins and David Shoretell (CNN) report on the same story noting:

An FBI spokesman on Monday confirmed that a SWAT team arrested a soldier in Hawaii over the weekend and charged him with supporting ISIS.
FBI Honolulu spokesman Arnold Laanui confirmed the agents arrested Ikaika Erik Kang, a 34-year-old Army soldier stationed at Schofield Barracks on Saturday.
In a release, the FBI said it had worked closely with the Army in this case. The statement said the investigation by the FBI and the Army had been going on for more than a year.

The following community sites -- plus Tavis Smiley and BLACK AGENDA REPORT --  updated: