First up, Jimmy Dore.
Good. Joe Biden's needs to stop trying to mandate. This is nonsense and it's discriminatory and overly effects the working class.
Next up? Jonathan Turley:
The indictments of John Durham has shaken up Washington recently as he laid out the critical role played by Clinton campaign associates in the creation of the Russian collusion scandal, including the inclusion of debunked but widely reported allegations. It is clear from the latest indictment why leading Democrats like Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tried to kill the Durham investigation. None of that however prepared some of us for the response of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who called upon fired FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok to question the indictments. Strzok was fired at the recommendation of career investigators and has been cited as an example of the raw bias of key players in the Russian investigation. Yet, he was the choice of MSNBC to review the recent indictments and he did not disappoint in belittling the crimes alleged by the Special Counsel.
Maddow was one of the leading voices pushing the Russian collusion claims. She has not corrected her past statements or apologized for pushing the discredited claims. She was particularly assertive in touting the debunked Steele dossier.
On her Jan. 13, 2017, program, she stated:
“I mean, had the FBI looked into what was in that dossier and found that it was all patently false, they could tell us that now, right? I mean, the dossier has now been publicly released. If the FBI looked into it and they found it was all trash, there’s no reason they can’t tell us that now. They’re not telling us that now. They’re not saying that. They’re not saying anything.”
Now Durham has detailed how the dossier was the product of the Clinton campaign, which long denied that it funded the dossier and only admitted the truth long after the election.
The response of Maddow was to invite one of the most biased and discredited figures in the scandal to cover the indictment.
Strzok’s bias and violation of FBI rules led to career Justice Department investigators referring his case to prosecutors and led to his firing from the FBI. His emails showed intense bias against Donald Trump and highly concerning statements about having an “insurance policy” in place if Trump were to win the election.
See that's how you do it, that's how you call out and critique Rachel Maddow.
That's how you do it, not the way Aaron Mate tried and failed. From Ava and C.I.'s "Media: Save us from the know-it-alls:"
Russia-gate was nonsense and Rachel pimped it endlessly.
Aaron Mate. We wanted to give him a gold star and brag on him. We kept hearing he'd done a great job in the last days by nailing down Rachel's lies about Russia-gate with a brand new column.
Yea! We could praise him.
And then we read it.
"Russia-gate has no rock bottom" is the title and right below the title there's a photo of Rachel Maddow.
Good, he's going to get to the point and document and explain her various deceptions, right?
Wrong. Not counting pull quotes (even his own from previous articles) or Tweets, just the new words he typed for this article, he's at 1387 words before he gets to a sentence with Rachel Maddow's name in it.
By way of comparison, we're not even at 1000 words yet and we've already established Rachel's shady character -- something we've been doing for years
1387. Does Aaron have a point to make about Rachel because we really don't have that kind of time. More to the point, we don't need to make that kind of time.
Russia-gate? We didn't need Aaron Mate to call that nonsense out for ourselves. Both of us knew the late Stephen Cohen and when we had a question regarding claims, he's the one we went to. But, here's the thing, we were already calling out Russia-gate before we had to consult anyone.
We were speaking to various groups and it started popping up. We knew, on its face, it was garbage and called it out from the start.
Aaron Mate? Sorry, we knew him only as one of the liars about Libya from when he was on DEMOCRACY NOW! The show through whatever tiny bits of integrity it had into the waste bin in order to push for war on Libya. They were downright hateful to the late Glen Ford of BLACK AGENDA REPORT. No, we don't forget things like that, sorry.
But we were happy to have a reason to praise Aaron. Or happy to think we would praise him.
Again, we made the mistake of reading him.
Who does he think is going to read the piece? The new 'hook' for him is to call out Rachel and her refusal to correct the record. That could get some new eye balls on the topic. But not if they're waiting 1387 words before he can get to the point.
A lot of people bought into the lies of Russia-gate. They did so because the media sold these lies. So calling out a media figure who sold the lies is a good idea. Expecting people read over 1387 words before you even mention the name of a media personality is more than a bit much.
If you're boasting on your Twitter feed that you're taking on Rachel Maddow and your article begins with a photo of her, you really should mention her not later than the last sentence in your first paragraph.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, November 11, 2021. We focus on a number of topics, including the October 10th election. But the main point is probably: If you want to stop people from questioning a narrative you're trying to sell, maybe don't deploy your well known CIA stenographer.
Starting with? The CIA's chief scribe has spoken and that's supposed to be 'end of story.' They should have chosen a better scribe who takes their dictation. Here's the garbage:
Even by the brutal political rules of Baghdad, the recent attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi appears to have shocked many Iraqis — and undermined the Iranian-sponsored militias who had been trying to drive him from power.
The implications of the Baghdad drone attack were summarized in an email from Randa Slim, director of conflict resolution at the Middle East Institute. “There is enough circumstantial evidence pointing to Iran-backed Iraqi militias having orchestrated this attack. But it already backfired on them. It was a stupid and shortsighted move that achieved the exact opposite of their objective to deny Prime Minister Kadhimi a second term. This assassination attempt made his second term in office almost certain.”
That distortion of fact and reality courtesy of David Ignatius, longterm stenographer for the CIA.
Years ago, five? ten?, it was said of David, by a reporter at THE WASHINGTON POST, "He's such a good whore that his well worn floppy requires a drawstring to close." Indeed.
Did the drone attack turn people away from the militias?
No. David, you stupid whore. Did they not use lube this time? Did that make you work less hard at spinning for them? I have no idea. But the reason the militias did poorly in the voting -- which took place weeks before the drone attack last Saturday -- was two-fold. One, they were disenfranchised and not allowed to vote -- a large number of them. (They were prevented from early voting despite the fact that on election day they would be required to be at polling places. They were the only part of the Iraqi security forces who were disenfranchised. And, yes, they are an official part of the security forces. Something I long objected to while David, voice of the CIA, remained silent because the CIA backed bringing the militias in. They thought, originally, it would put them under control. It did nothing of the sort. Wow, the CIA got it wrong. That would be news . . . if it wasn't pretty much always the outcome. Maybe they should stop trying to offer predictions? If not, just outsource the work to some online psychic.)
What turned people against the militias? The violence aimed at the Iraqi people -- especially members of The October Revolution (the protest movement that started in the fall of 2019). The fact that Iraq and Iran share a border and will always squabble -- over water rights, border lines, etc. The fact that the two have had armed conflict in the past and that isn't forgotten (on either side of the border). The fact that the Iraqi people want a national identity -- made clear in the 2010 elections (the ones Joe Biden and the US government overturned with The Erbil Agreement). The simple fact that no one wants some other country ordering them around.
The drone attack has not let to an outcry on the part of the Iraqi people.
Most don't care.
Some who don't care see the whole thing as a stunt and believe that the US government staged it.
You'll note (a) David treis to speak for the Iraqi people but doesn't quote one, no note even one.
Randa Slim? Maybe she, the person David does quote, looks "Iraqi" to David?
To the rest of the world, she's a Lebanese American.
So why are you quoting her when you present as representing what the Iraqi people are saying.
Oh, if whorese were bound by reality, they'd never get paid, right?
David knows the big thing is: Get the money upfront.
And let's hope he did because this column was a huge mistake.
I have no idea what happened last Saturday or who the target was (it may have been Mustafa) or who launched the attack. But as we noted Saturday night (it was Saturday night in the US when the attack took place but it was already Sunday in Iraq), there was a huge pushback on social media from Iraqis.
They didn't take it as a real attack. Large numbers were expressing the belief that this was a plan carried out by the US government to try to force Mustafa off on the Iraqi people.
So when David -- with his well known and longterm ties to the CIA -- publishes the column he did? He feeds into these beliefs. They can say, "We thought it was a CIA operation and look, here's the American pig who is the voice of the CIA and he's twisting reality."
Because David is twisting reality. He's lucky that so few in the US pay attention to Iraq. Or they'd realize that his claim that an alleged assassination attempt wasn't going to change the Iraqi people's feelings towards the miliitas (most are opposed) or towards the inept Mustafa al-Kahdimi.
And we need to point out something. I am disclosed as anti-militia and have been forever. I opposed them being brought into the government forces. Sometimes I short hand and assume most people are already aware of certain things because we have covered them over and over.
But beyond the natural conflict between Iraq and Iran, we do need to note another issue.
Sawha. Sons (Daughters) Of Iraq. Awakenings.
Ring a bell?
I didn't support those either and for the same reason that the Iraqi people didn't support them -- they don't want militias. The Sunni militias were not linked to Iran.
The core issue is that people don't like miliitias.
I remember when we had to call out reporters regularly as they sold SOI as beloved by the Iraqi people.
No, that was never reality.
Had it been, Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have gotten away with not paying them.
The US government created tehm -- using elements of the Sunni mafia, let's be honest. Individuals already in organized crime who often used the cement industry in Iraq as their front.
They were never popular with the Iraqi people despite the lies told by various US newspapers.
And the US government needed them to be popular because they were using the American people's money to pay them.
When that little tidbit emerged, Senator Barbara Boxer managed to force the issue of payment off to the Iraqi government (she did that in an April 2008 hearing -- one David never covered but when the CIA briefs you, I guess you don't need to attend hearings). Nouri had to say that he'd pay. He didnt't have a choice. The US Congress loathed the 'leader' that the CIA had backed. (The CIA assessment on Nouri al-Maliki was that his paranoia was so extreme, it would be easy for the US government to play to it and manipulate him. In other words, they put a mad dog in charge and then kicked the dog and threw stones at him and when he unleashed on the Iraqi people, that same US government looked the other way.)
Militias are never popular when you have a standing government. They were never going to be controlled by the Iraqi government and the stupidity on the part of the CIA really needs to be called out.
Did the CIA have a hand in Saturday's events?
I have no idea.
But it is what a large number of Iraqi people on social media believe.
So it wasn't a good thing for the CIA to deploy their known whore David Ignatius. They will notice. And not just because I know this will be reposted -- this part of the snapshot if not the full thing -- by two Iraqi papers. (And that's fine. I've never had a problem with that. This is their story, any of their outlets can use the writing here and many have.)
David's an old whore and the CIA should probably move on to someone younger. Someone a little more fresh. And someone with a lot less baggage.
David's attachment will only confirm the belief of some Iraqis that the attack or 'attack' was a US plot to try to force Mustafa down their throats.
They don't want them.
And, here's the thing, Mustafa isn't direct in line for a second term. And most people paying attention are aware of that. So David just looks like a paid liar around the world.
Mustafa did not stand for election. He thought he was popular but he wasn't The US government -- Joe Biden -- promised him he had their full backing (ask Ayad Allawi how that worked out when then-President Barack Obama made the same promise).
Is Moqtada al-Sadr a "king maker." He might end up one, he might not. There was nothing to argue strongly that he was, nothing in the record. But didn't the press, the western press, insist he was.
Moqtada is on the US payroll. The August bribe to get him to support the elections wasn't the only time the US government has paid Moqtada. And that goes a long way towards explaining why the western press has gone out of their way to promote Moqtada.
But the narrative they've presented has insisted Moqtada will decide who is prime minister.
It overlooked reality -- 73 seats is not a lot of seats and is not the necessary amount to form a government, for example. The reality of Moqtada's skill was also overlooked. We pointed out that he did not have the political or diplomatic skills to be deemed a king maker at present.
All this time later and he still can't pull together a coalition.
But Nouri? Thug Nouri is pulling together support. It is the story the western press continues to ignore.
Mustafa was named prime minister in May of 2020 and he was supposed to be a one-term prime minister. He got greedy and wanted more. The Iraqi people, seeing his incompetence, doesn't want more.
Let's note a Tweet about Nouri.
Does Nouri know who's responsible? Is Nouri himself responsible?
These are conversations taking place and they are conversation that Iraq 'expert' David is completely unwilling to acknowledge.
And anyone paying attention can see it.
The US government ought to spend the taxpayer money better. But they don't, as noted below:
So they paid off thug Recep? No real surprise. Come to the US and, on American soil, order your bodyguards to assault Americans and Joe Biden and company are fine with that. Their only question is: Recep, how much do you need? And then they use tax power money to pay off a despot who is carrying out a genocide on the Kurdish people.
Where's the final tally on the votes?
Iraqis voted October 10th. It's a month later. Where's the final tally?
The following sites updated: