Wednesday, April 04, 2018

MODERN FAMILY

“Some witnesses, including NYT reporter Earl Caldwell, said they saw a man moving in the thick bushes. For reasons unknown, Memphis public works employees cut down the bushes and destroyed a possible crime scene the next morning”



Yep, the federal government killed MLK.  Check out Margaret Kimberley's piece on MLK:


  1. I’m proud to have this piece appear in Consortium News. King’s legacy betrayed by unscrupulous people who today will pretend to honor him.



Now let's talk MODERN FAMILY.  I watched tonight's episode on TV -- I never do that.  I'll get to why in a minute.

Tonight was funny and a lot of that was because they used Hayley and used her wisely.  The actress who plays her is naturally funny.  Not every member of the cast is.  They need Hayley a lot more than the actress needs the show at this point.

It was a funny episode -- even the Phil and Claire storyline -- where she got their old apartment for the night.  The Manny story was funny, not hilarious, but funny.  Alex was in that and it lost some humor as a result, the actress playing Alex is not naturally funny.  Cam was funny as usual and Lily got some good moments.

Now I watched it on TV because a lot of people e-mailed about last week's "BLINDSPOT, MODERN FAMILY, MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD."

A lot of you asked if it was that bad, last week's MODERN FAMILY. 

None of you seemed to have caught it and a few of you noted you'd stopped watching the show a year or so ago.

It was that bad.

It was awful.

I tried again to watch it and couldn't get past the half-way mark again -- third time.

I watched MODERN FAMILY tonight on TV on the station.  I've never done that.  I just stream it on HULU the day after. 

But I wanted to write about it so nobody felt they were being ignored.

Tonight was good.

But last week was awful.

Did it have to do with Gloria outrunning the police, one of you asked.

No, I didn't weight it for the real world and honestly didn't think about the bad message that might have sent.  I'm not talking a 'moral' message.  I'm saying some kid might think, "Oh, yeah, I can outrun the cops!" And end up getting shot.

I just felt the show was bad and not funny. 

After all this time on the air, the writers should know what the cast can do and what they can't.  Last week's script didn't tailor to anyone's strengths. 

So that's my take.

They need to be putting Hayley and Luke in front and they need to use Lily more. 

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


Wednesday, April 4, 2018.  Alissa J. Rubin reports on checkpoints in Iraq, Brett McGurk reveals the real reason Barack Obama started moving US troops back into Iraq in 2014 (it wasn't the Yazidis), and much more.


Oh, the stupidity. We were going to go with Peter Baker but there was a bigger fool on Iraq today.

People treating Laura Ingraham like some sort of free speech martyr didn't seem to mind so much when Phil Donahue lost his show for the crime of being right about the Iraq war.







People are objecting to a cry baby White boy who shoved his way to the front of the photo op to tear center stage away from students of color only to then throw a tantrum because Larua Ingraham said he was "whining."  Grow the hell up.  And since he can't, broadcasters are being irresponsible by booking David Hogg.  He does not have the maturity to be in public.

Ingraham said he was whining.  For that, her advertisers were astroturffed by Hogg and his followers who don't hold jobs and have all the time in the world to create sock puppets.  Ingraham has done some appalling things.  Saying someone was "whining" is not one of them.  She doesn't deserve to be targeted for this nonsense.

But, more to the point, Schooley, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  Phil Donahue did not lose his show because he was right about the Iraq War.  The Iraq War had not started.  MSNBC pulled his show because they felt his questioning during war time would come off as unpatriotic.  Should he have lost his show?  No.  And it was a hit show.  But let's not alter reality because you're too lazy to learn what happened, Schooley.

Moving over to THE NEW YORK TIMES, they have re-launched their blog AT WAR and one of the pieces there is by Alissa J. Rubin who returned to Iraq in January and who will have a piece on Iraq in an upcoming NEW YORK TIMES SUNDAY MAGAZINE.  This is from her blog about a three hour trip in Iraq previously was now a nine hour trip due to all the checkpoints:





After the last Kurdish position, everything changed. We were diverted onto a minor road that twisted through the desert scrub of the Nineveh plains. We emerged at a large Iraqi Army checkpoint with cars and trucks parked haphazardly on either side.
A soldier asked if I was a foreigner. Yes, we said.
We were not allowed to pass. At a dilapidated concrete building surrounded by mud and pickup trucks, we were told we could plead our case.
The one dubious comfort was that there seemed to be others waylaid.
We entered a room with scuffed walls. Soiled, sunken couches lay along two sides of the room. There was a large battered desk along the third wall. On the fourth wall was an army cot. The only light came through windows so dirty it was hard to see out. A soldier smoked a hookah pipe.
A man wearing jeans and a leather jacket restlessly paced. He appeared to be in charge. “Papers,” he snapped.
We produced press cards. Looking around, I saw other idled travelers with forms bearing official-looking stamps. The soldier reviewed each form carefully.
He seemed decent enough. He said he would call his supervisor, and if we had permission, we could cross.
We called our bureau in Baghdad. We did have government approval. We asked our office manager to try to get someone with authority to call the checkpoint on our behalf.
We waited. We waited some more. Other travelers came and went. Our office in Baghdad recommended we call local army commanders. We texted, we called, then we pleaded some more with the checkpoint chief. Nothing happened.
I looked at my watch. It had been an hour and five minutes. I turned to Kamil: “What can we do?”
“You know Jabouri, right?” he said.


No, I answered.
Kamil was referring to Gen. Najim Abed al-Jabouri, the Iraqi Army commander in charge of Mosul and the surrounding territory, who had a reputation for being reasonable.
“Even if you don’t know him, why don’t you call him?” Kamil said.
More calls to Baghdad. Jabouri’s number was sent to me. As I typed him a text message, the checkpoint soldier dialed a number on his phone, muttering in Arabic.
Kamil had been watching. He spoke softly to me. “The guy just made a phone call and said, ‘Now they are calling Jabouri, I’m going to let them go.’ ”
An hour and 15 minutes after arriving, we were free. We rushed to our car before anyone of them could change their minds.



Checkpoints are often associated with borders so let's move to that topic.  Yesterday the US Institute of Peace held several talks on Iraq.  The third and final one included a group composed of Brett McGurk (lead US diplomat on Iraq under Barack Obama, also a diplomat on Iraq under Bully Boy Bush and a diplomat on Iraq under Donald Trump who is ending Brett's current position), US Gen Joseph Votel, USAID's Mark Green and noted leaker Stephen J. Hadley.  Votel was the one who stressed the issue of borders and how this involves the US troops.

Because, please note, US troops remain in Iraq.  While you are being distracted, US troops remain in Iraq.   It's amazing that the US press appears to be ignoring the events at the US Institute of Peace because this group is funded by Congress and has a direct pipeline to Congress.  As most participants noted, Congress will be making determinations shortly.  And what the so-called peace event was pimping?  Continued US military presence in Iraq.  This came from USAID's Mark Green.  It came from all of the participants.  But Green, someone who has nothing to do with the military, couldn't stop praising the new civilian and military mixture teams -- who, he insisted, were not duplicating one another's work.  The event was all about selling the war, continuing the war.  Why wasn't the American press interested in covering this DC event?


US Gen Joseph Votel:  We'll-we'll  see a heavy focus on the development of Iraqi border forces. Uh, this will be very, very important. They-they do not want to have a repeat of what happened before. Obviously, ISIS is an organization that operates without regard to borders or boundaries or any, uh, any recognized norm of that sort and so being able to protect their own borders, is, I think is a -- is a key aspect of this. And, along the way, we'll see the coalition forces with the United States continue to provide the support that the government of Iraq has asked of them. And this has been something we've been talking about with them for some time here, so that we do remain in a position where we can continue to help them professionalize, continue to help them develop into the -- into the security force that the Iraqi people need and want to protect them in the future. So uh, in-in Iraq, I think we're in a pretty good place right now security wise. It is -- there still is the presence of ISIS, uh, there's no doubt about that, but I think with the coalition's support, I think the Iraqi security forces are in a pretty good position to begin to address that.


He was not the only one noting (advocating for) the continued US military presence in Iraq at the Institute of Peace.  SPUTNIK notes Iraq's Ambassador to the US, Fareed Yasseen, who declared, "They played a really critical role.  We will continue to need their support and their expertise to fight ISIS in the comping phases where you will have to move from terrain tactics warfare to intelligence, fusion cells, counter-terrorism, things like that."  ALMASDAR NEWS adds, "Moreover, Yasseen said that Iraq would also need the support of the United States to secure its border with Syria."

Again, no matter who spoke, they all joined the chorus of "Keep US Boots On The Ground."

Some sang it a little louder, but they all sang it.

Some did a solo turn or two.  Chief among them?  Brett McGurk.

Why did US troops start going back into Iraq in heavier numbers after the second half of 2014?  To help the Yazidis!

No.

That has been the lie.

The conference cleared that up.  Don't think Brett realized he was doing that, but he did.  He wanted to talk about how they arrived at this recent point in history and he wanted to start with 2014.  He revealed that Baghdad was seriously concerned the Islamic State would seize the city (which everyone already knew) and that, at this time, the US government was seriously exploring evacuating the US Embassy in Baghdad (a detail not previously discussed in the US press), "that's how serious it was."

Not everyone's selling the notion of US troops remaining in Iraq.  The idea is especially unpopular in Iraq.  Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr continues to call for US troops to leave the country.  Baxtiyar Goran (KURDISTAN 24) reports:


Influential Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr on Sunday expressed his rejection to the presence of foreign troops in Iraq, vowing resistance against them.
In a hand-written letter released to the media by his office, Sadr, the leader of the Sadrist Movement in Iraq, warned against the presence of the US or any other foreign military in the country.
“Our position regarding the presence of the invading US forces, under the pretext of military advisers, and with the endorsement and knowledge of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is clear,” he wrote. “Everyone knows our position, we reject and resist” the presence of the US troops in Iraq.




Violence continues in Iraq.  UNAMI released their undercount of violence for the month of March:



UN Casualty Figures for for the Month of March 2018 A total of 104 Iraqi civilians were killed and another 177 injured in acts of terrorism, violence and armed conflict in Iraq in March 2018*, according to casualty figures recorded by UNAMI.








The following community sites -- plus PACIFICA EVENING NEWS and NPR -- updated:











Tuesday, April 03, 2018

After prompting ethical questions with her behavior, she whines




CNN reports:





Jill McCabe on Monday called President Donald Trump's attacks on her family, culminating in her husband's firing, a "nightmare."
The wife of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe called out the President for his public attacks, centered on her 2015 run for the state Senate in Virginia, in a Washington Post op-ed.
"For the past year and a half of this nightmare, I have not been free to speak out about what happened. Now that Andrew has been fired, I am," wrote Jill McCabe, who is an emergency room pediatrician.


 Oh, stop your husband did wrong, the IG report found that.  You really need to just shut your mouth.  No one needs to hear it.  Your husband and you give the perception of a conflict of interest.

He shouldn't have been involved in any investigation of Hillary Clinton while you were getting thousands of dollars from her friend Terry.

You can play the poor me card all you want but you're a cheap politician (and a failed one) who needs to shut her damn mouth.  But, hey, keep talking.  You'll probably implicate yourself further.

It is a reasonable objection that when person A is being investigated by person B person's B's wife should not have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from person A's friend.

You and your husband created your own problems.  That's on you.  Trashy people.




One of the most disturbing chapters of the Andrew McCabe saga here in The Swamp is the smarmy, shameless, despicable and totally effective fundraising campaign that just netted the former Deputy FBI Director a cool half-million bucks donated by generous (if not misguided) Americans keen on seeing James Comey’s crony “stick it” to Donald Trump
Now, you may see it as a bit unseemly for a “public servant” to beg the American people to pay for his lawyers (doesn’t he know a few lawyers who could help him out? Does Sally Yates have a gig?) but you’re clearly missing the point. McCabe is one of our betters. He doesn’t have time for “accountability” or “transparency” or petty little ideas like “answering to a higher authority for his actions.” He IS the higher authority, right? 

[. . .]
In other words, McCabe wants your money to help him answer questions to the entities responsible for oversight of his behavior at the FBI. His actions, while employed in the Justice Department’s law enforcement bureau have come into question and he has to answer for that behavior. So now it’s time for Americans to pony up and pay for his lawyers. 




Cheap and trashy.  The McCabes should be ashamed of themselves.


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

Tuesday, April 3, 2018.  Elections in Iraq are approaching and predictions are being made.



This morning, WORLD BULLETIN reports:

A total of 374 would-be candidates will be excluded from Iraq’s upcoming parliamentary polls due to previous associations with the now-defunct Baath Party, according to Iraq’s Justice and Accountability Commission.
In a Monday statement, the commission said it had finished vetting the names of 7,367 potential candidates, 374 of whom had been found to have links with the outlawed party, which ruled Iraq under deposed President Saddam Hussein.

The Justice and Accountability Commission was supposed to have been sent packing long ago.  In fact, ending de-Ba'athification and moving to national reconciliation was one of the benchmarks the Iraqi government was supposed to meet in order to continue receiving US financial and military support.  But that was when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House.  These days, they don't even pretend.  And, let's be clear, the benchmarks were a pretense.  The only one who took them seriously in the US Congress was US House Rep Lloyd Doggett.  He expected them to be met or support to be cut off.  Others in Congress didn't even pretend to care.

May 12th is when Iraq is supposed to hold the latest round of elections.

Dropping back to last Friday's CSIS podcast, where Anthony Cordesman and pollster Dr. Munqith Dagher discussed Iraq's upcoming elections. Using the data pool of those who intend to vote (likely voters), Dagher predicts that Hayder al-Abadi's Al-Nasr will win 72 seats in the Parliament, al-Fath (the militias) will get 37 seats, Sa'eroon (Moqtada al-Sadr's new grouping) will get 27 seats, Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law will get 19 seats, al-Salam will get 18 seats (KDP and PUK parties for the Kurds), Ayad Allawi's Wataniya will get 15 seats. There are others but Dagher did not predict double digits for any of the other seats.  The number are similar for the group of those who are extremely likely to vote (Hayder's seats would jump from 72 to 79 seats).

These are predictions and the election's over a month out (May 12th).  Even if the predictions are accurate, many things could change by the time elections roll around.  In 2010, many pollsters were predicting a big victory for Nouri al-Maliki.  Not only did he not have a big victory at the polls, he did not even have a victory.  Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya won in 2010.

If Dagher's current predictions should prove to be accurate, no single party will win enough seats to form a government and will have to enter arrangements with other parties.

Who will?

That's where it always gets confusing.  There's the law and then there's the Iraqi courts.  The party with the most seats in Parliament is supposed to get first crack at forming a government.  After the 2010 March election, Nouri pulled out a court verdict that none of the other parties knew about and presented it as law.

If the laws and rules are followed this go round and if Dagher's predictions ended up accurate, Hayder al-Abadi would have first crack at forming a government.  He would need to enter alliances with other groups.  You need 163 seats in the Parliament to govern.

And for 2018, what's expected?  Per Dagher, forming the government after the election will not come quickly, "It will take a long time.  It will take quiet a long time."  He did not reference 2010 but he did say he was basing this on the 2014 post-election process.  2010, of course, took eight months following the election for a government to be formed.

Corruption and jobs are the two biggest issues potential voters cite for how they will determine whom to vote for.  That explains Hayder's low turnout.  (Low?  In 2010, Ayad Allawi's group won 91 seats.)  Hayder has not reduced -- let alone ended -- corruption and job creation has not been present in Iraq.  Of course, many who do have jobs in Iraq have a different problem: getting paid for their work.

Ferhad Dolemeri (RUDAW) reports, "Kurdish farmers filed a complaint at Iraq's administrative court in Baghdad against the trade minister as part of their continued demands for not providing full compensation for their last four years of crops sold to Baghdad."


Dagher is not the only one making predictions about the upcoming elections.

will lose at least 13 seats, retain presidency in elections: official
 
 



There is a lot of energy vested in the US State Dept -- therefore also in the US press -- for this round of elections to be seen as a success and a confirmation of something.  But the spin suffered a blow this week when Mohamed Haidar resigned as Vice Chair of the Elections Committee.


Hi This is what your representatives are going in Iraq. There were fairer Iraq FA elections under Saddam & his son Uday. How about FIFA do something about these violations? Setting up their own elections and omitting any nominees they want!
 
 





Let's move over to Kurdistan.

Turkey is destroying what little infrastructure we have here in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq with almost daily air strikes
 
 


Turkey is not offering repayment for their bombings.  That the Iraqi government is not speaking out about the destruction of northern Iraq goes to a lack of will and a lack of support.  RUDAW reports:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned Baghdad that Ankara will not wait for permission to extend its war against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) into Iraqi territory.

Erdogan, speaking at the opening ceremony for a number of new schools and gymnasiums in Istanbul on Monday, said PKK fighters may flee across international borders, but they cannot hide from the Turkish armed forces.



What is he talking about?  He's stating he will not coordinate with the Iraqi government and, specifically, he is rebuffing the US government.

At last Thursday's US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Heather Nauert voiced the position of the US government:


QUESTION: Could you clarify the situation in Sinjar? The PKK says it’s left. Turkey is still making threats. What’s the situation there, as far as you know?



MS NAUERT: Right. We’ve certainly seen reports that there are those groups in Sinjar. And many of us will remember Sinjar from the Yezidis, the Yezidis who were there who then had to be rescued, some of them, and some of them were brutally murdered by ISIS. We’ve seen the reports of those groups in Sinjar. We understand that Turkey has expressed some of its concern over the presence of them in northern Iraq. Sinjar and the United States expect that any operations in Iraq would be done with the approval of the Iraqi Government. So if Turkey is coming into Sinjar, they need to coordinate that with the Government of Iraq. 
Erdogen is rejecting that.  He is stating he will not respect the government of Iraq, he will not make requests to it.


Let's move to a different topic.

The entire Republican Party operationalized against the Dixie Chicks when they spoke against Bush and the Iraq War. Suddenly, the GOP wants to cry “censorship” because advertisers in the free market don’t want to pay Laura Ingraham to bully a teenage mass shooting survivor.
 
 


No wonder Hillary lost.  She had idiots like Kaivan working for her.

Do they really think they can say whatever s**t they want and get away with it?

He's lying.

I was at the hearing where John McCain -- a Republican -- called out the silencing of the Dixie Chicks.  Do not say "the entire Republican Party."  Nor do I believe that the reluctant voter for the Iraq War Olympia Snowe was part of an attack on the Dixie Chicks.

I'm really tired of the lies from the Hillary crowd.  They don't care about Iraq, they never have.  And now they think they can say whatever they want and facts don't matter.

Is this really to be Hillary's legacy?  This crop of liars?  Since they identify themselves as workers on her campaign, you would think they would work twice as hard to be accurate.


On the topic of dishonesty, let's note this:

PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS THE LAST PRESIDENT TO VISIT OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ AND AFÄ¢HANISTAN. FACTS: 4/7/09, 3/28/10, 12/3/10, to name a few.
 
 


Barack Obama was president for two terms.  During those two terms, he visited Iraq once and only once.

He was not propelled to the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination by his words on Afghanistan, he was propelled by his words on Iraq and his promise -- which Samantha Power explained wasn't really a promise -- to end the Iraq War.

He visited Iraq only once as president.

The lying woman who Tweeted knew she was lying and tried to conflate the two.

Iraq?  If Trump gets two terms and doesn't visit Iraq, she can complain.  Until then, there's not really any point in comparing the two.


I love how these trashy people who never try to stop the Iraq War love to jump on it when they think they can use it as political football.


The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, BLACK AGENDA REPORT and LATINO USA -- updated: