I'm reading, with my KINDLE UNLIMITED subscription on AMAZON, VAMPIRELLA: THE ESSENTIAL WARREN YEARS VOL. 1. It's a collection of the original run of the comic books first five years that began in 1969 and follows the superheroine vampire.
I'd recommend you check it out if you're paying for AMAZON's KINDLE UNLIMTED.
These are pen and ink drawings (it was a black and white comic) and the shading and the mood really comes through so strongly that it's shocking. Great art work.
I wasn't aware of the comic book. I asked Marcia, who recently wrote "Female superheroes," and she wasn't aware either. So you may want to check it out because it's new or you may want to check it out because you remember the series. On Marcia, she had a birthday recently and among her gifts were two books that were collections of comic books, she writes about that in "Batgirl and Ms. Marvel" "Batgirl" and "Ms. Marvel,"
If I could have any illustration made into a poster to hang on my wall -- hang in there, this is related -- it would be the panel in the animated opening of season three BATMAN (the live series) where we see Batgirl on her motorcyle.
I liked Yvonne Craig's Batgirl on the show but I really loved the way Batgirl and her motorcyle were captures in that still drawing. And if I had it as a poster, I would be hanging it in my living room right now.
Friday, April 22, 2022. A few electoral related issues.
Sabby
Sabs had a really important video this week and we noted it in an entry
on its own but I want to be sure it's in a snapshot. Before that, this
will probably be a shorter snapshot. My blood suger's out of whack and
I'm having to stop and start -- hurling and dictating do not go
totether well.
But I actually want to start with a
REvolutionary BLACKOUT issue. They had a good video that we've noted on
its own already this week (yesterday, I believe). There was one thing
that needed clarification. It was taking on Sam Seder (yea!) and this
is ot to defend Seder and I was going to let it pass but then Bernie.
Sam
was in a debate with a person it is not our goal to promote so we're
not even going to name him. RB was reviewing that debate and they noted
that Sam lost -- which doesn't suprrise me. We are not and have never
been fan of Sam. "We" meaning me myself and meaning this website. We
parted ways, this website, with Sam in January of 2005 when he revealed
hmself to be acheap whore and one who woud promote corporate interests
(Simon Rosenberg). Rosenberg was spitting on the LGBT community and
going off on prominent African-American members of the Democratic Party
and that was okay with Sam. So he can rot in hell, I'm not here to
defend him and that's before you factor in that I know Janeane Garofalo,
I like her and I consider her a friend. I don't ever forgive how he
ousted her from her program.
So in the debate Sam
made some point about people who weren't even Democrats. The ine wasn't
qutoed. But Sam was around in 2008 and a lot of peple weren't. If he
was referring to 2008, I do know what he meant and I do think it's an
isseue if Bernie runs again.
In 2008, a bi-racial man
who was attractive ran for the Democratic Party's presidential
nomination -- actually that started in 2007 -- and he wasn't connecting
with the voters. John Edwards and his crew of sexist -- female
bloggers, you know who you are -- thought he'd win the nomination.
Grabby hands and his cult couldn't see the writing ont he wall. The
person who coul've won it then was Hillary Clinton.
Because
Barack was pretty and a novelty, all type of sowoning took place. I
still rank the most embarrassing moment when Martha read an e-mail from
Daivd Lindorff over the phone to me about how people should support
Barack because "as a Black man who did drugs" he would be more radical
than anything the system could handle. Barack has been called many
things by many thinking people but no one with a real and functioning
brain has ever called him radical. And never will.
But
there were radicals latching on to him -- the friendship with
Bernardine Dohrn and her trophy husband wasn't the only thing there.
The Weather Underground's Carl stopped giving himself his monthly breast
exam long enough to start a fux group for Barack. Carl couldn't hide
what he was for the most part. But many did. And if Democrats don't
want non-Democrat impacting their primaries, they can make them a
closed primary. But here's the problem, a lot of them showed up writing
pieces as Democrats. As a Democrat, this is what our party stands for
this is . . .
And they weren't Democrats. Be a
Socialist, be a Communist , be whatever (yes, even a a Republican), but
don't present yourself as a Democrat in order to sway potential overs
when you are not a Democrats.
As we noted in real time,
that ticked off a lot of people. In 2016, Hillar.y Clinton, again
seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, tried to latch
onto that angry sentiment left over from 2008 with her remarks about how
Bernie wasn't a Democrat (he's a Socialist) and shouldn't be allowed to
even run in the primary. She'd already picked her Republican nominee,
right? (Her campaign pushed the coverage of Donald in the GOP primary
because they thought he'd be the easiest to defeat in a general
election.) But here's the problem, Bernie couldn't have run withut
the party's okay. As a sitting senator that the Democrats had a policy
-- that dated back to Bernie being in the House --which eant that they
would never challenge him in an election by running an actual Democrat
for the post, Bernie wouldn't have done anything to anger the Party and
he ran with the Party's blessing. They didn't think he could win (and,
as we now know, various people like Donna Brazile were working to harm
his campaign while pretending to be impartial).
They let him run.
So that was a stupid argument. Bernie's enver pretended he wasn't a Scocialist.
But Bernie has pretended And that's why we're addressing the point now.
As
a Socialist, if he runs again -- as he says he's thinking about doing
-- it will be with the Democratic Party's leadership's approval.
He
would get them attention that they would not otherwise receive. And
his 'left' or left positions would bring people into the fold -- that he
would later try to sheepherd to whatever corporatist won the
nomination.
He serves the sheep hearding role, yes.
But no one ever comments on the other role he serves. By letting Bernie
run and letting him lose, they make the argument that these are good
policies, yes, but the man supporting them couldn't win, so we need to
just keep working on ait a little bit harderr.
That's how they deny the overwhelmingly popular Medicare For All issue.
He is not helping anyone.
And no one with self-respect who had seen their campaign worked against in 2016 and 2020 would even consider running again.
Bernie
has no self respect and has clearly accepted his fole as a sheep
hearder and as a denier of needed policies (such as Medicare For All).
He shouldn't run. If he does, no one should be taken in by him.
He
folds every time, which is bad enough, but then he tries to whore out
the people who believed in the policies and issues he said he believed
in. We can't afford his nonsense. He's been a lousy US senator and
I've said that long ago. (And had to hear in 2016 when some Bernie
supporters were upset that Hillary's campaign was using issues we'd
pointed out in years previously. Like when the VA scandal broke about
the deaths from waiting for care broke and Bernie, then Chair of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, admonished everyone at the start of
the hearing, insisting that that issue would be dealt with but they were
to focus on today's issue instead . . . holistic medicine. Wow Bernie,
you are so uninspiring.)
We can't afford him. If he runs, I hope people don't mistake him for anything of value again.
Okay, her's Sabby's video. It's important and she's raising serious issue as usual.
I
would love to comment on it but my blood sugar is really low and I'm
dizzy so I've got to go throw up again. Nouri al-Maliki will be noted
in Saturday's entry -- for his words. I think it can wait.
We're doing a Zomm at 6 with the East Coast so I have to stop here and hopefully get over throwing up and get done with it.
Isaiah's
latest THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Are They Scared Of Joe Biden?" As
Joe snaps and snarls, a group of reporters run for cover with one
noting, "I ain't asking him about Tara Reade. You ask him." Isaiah
archives his comics at THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS.
So now that the media is finally admitting that the laptop is Hunter Biden's, you think they could finally admit that Tara Reade told the truth?
Friday, March 24, 2022. About the only good world news today, Mad Maddie Albright remains dead.
Apparently
something needs clarification. It's up here before -- many times
over. But some whiners to the public e-mail account insist that 'poor'
Mad Maddie Albright was done wrong by me yesterday in the snapshot.
If so, I'm fine with that. I don't give a damn about her. But I'm not
sure that she was done wrong. 18 years this iste has been up. 16
years, I've wanted to wind it donw.
Can't.
Because
pretty much everyone walked away from the Iraq War -- the western press
certainly did. The same whores who helped sell the Iraq War.
Bloggers
pretended to care. Panhandle Media -- send money! send money! --
pretended to care. Congress pretended to care. All those people were
apparently pretending.
I think they were suprised,
politicians -- for example, by how strong the mood was against the Iraq
War. But they saw it as a way to win eletions so they pretended to give
a damn. When REupblicancs controlled the White House and both houses
of Congress, the illegal war was wrong and must end immediately.
Then
Democrats were put in charge of Congress (both houses in the November
2006 elections) and then the Congress and the White House (November 2008
elections) and wtihdrawing all US forces became a forgotten cry.
All
the fake asses went away. Someone -- maybe Fiorella Isabel on THE
CONVO COUCH -- this wee,k made the point that certain Republicans look
ridiculous when they start saying that these generic centerist
Democratsin Congress are "Communists." And I agree and get that point
100% but it's also true that Leslie Cagan is a Communist and she did
everything she could to elect Democrats. She wasn't, it turned out, at
all concerned about the Iraq War. She just grandstanded on that to drum
up votes for the Democratic Party. That's why she and her group United
For Peace and Justice immediately folded up their tent days after Barack
Obama was elected president in 2008. The war hadn't ended. The media
wasn't even pretending that it had at that point. But there was Leslie
shutting down her cong game. While it's ridiculous to think Nancy
Pelosi, for exmaple, might be a Communist, as some Republicans do, it's
equally ridiculous that some Communists in American dedicate their lives
to whoring and diverting for the Democratic Party.
If Leslie dies while this site is active? We'll probably remember her about as 'nicely' as we did Mad Maddie.
Because
this iste isn't about Amerrican crooks and con artists. From the
start, we've tried to highlight the Iraqi people. And you, an American
(idiot/) might feel that Mad Maddie got treated unfairly with words I
offered yesterday. However, the Iraqi children who suffered under
sanctions -- many of whom died -- had to endure a lot more than mere
words and for a lot longer than one day.
Children suffered because of Mad Maddie Albright. Some died. Some started off life with a struggle that she imposed.
We
weren't the only ones noting the truth about Mad Maddie. But because
enough people in the US were telling the truth, western media wasn't
able to do their usual photo-shopping of the truth. Mad Maddie will
probably still get her week of tributes that all crooks in the US
political class get but NEWSWEEK and others are being forced to note
that she was very proud of her part in the murder of Iraqi children via
crippling sanctions.
As for your prayers you'll offer
for my soul? I think we can probably all use some prayers, thank you.
But I also think if you're torn and upset over the death of an
84-year-old woman who bragged that the death of at least 500,000
children was "worth it," someone whom even Colin Powell had to admonish
(the US military is not a toy), someone who partenred with The Baker
Group in 2004 to skim off millions from Iraq, then you're either a saint
who cries for the death of each and every person or else you're
priorities are incredibly screwed.
Here's Mad Maddie.
The Iraqi people suffered and continue to suffer. Mad Maddie is noted by Patrick Martin (WSWS) but he notes it's impossible to review her entire rap sheet:
Even more significantly, Albright became chair of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) in 2001 and held that position until her
death. The NDI is an arm of the capitalist state, CIA-financed to
promote pro-imperialist political forces and to subvert any radical or
oppositionist trend that might threaten US corporate interests in
countries around the world.
In that capacity, Albright was deeply
involved in every crime of the US military-intelligence apparatus in the
first two decades of the 21st century, from Afghanistan to Iraq to
Ukraine. The celebration of her life and work by the corporate media,
and by Democratic and Republican politicians alike, is a demonstration
of the bipartisan consensus that anything goes, no matter how
undemocratic and bloody, in the defense of the profits and worldwide
global interests of the American financial aristocracy.
Let's
stay with garbage for a moment more. From Albright to another American
who needs to buy a damn clue: Little Sammy P.N. Cook who is 'ceo' of
his own sandbox entitled SanityDesk. He's surfaced online to inform the
world that Urkaine, which he just left, is worse than it was in Iraq.
Really?
Little
Sammy Junior, you were with the US military in Iraq. It was probably a
lot easier for you -- for anyone -- in Iraq with the US military than
it is for anyone in Ukraine. But don't confuse you entering that
contury armed and with other people who were also armed with what it was
like -- what it still is like -- for an Iraqi in Iraq. You reek of
entitlement and of stupditiy. You really should learn to measure your
remarks when you're trying to create yourself as someone smart enough to
offer analysis. The Iraq war didnt make you an expert on anything and
you're the one who is constantly proving that fact.
A “newspaper of record” is a major newspaper with a large circulation
whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered
authoritative. In this country, that newspaper has been the New York Times. It is believed that librarians began to refer to The New York Times (NYT)
as the “newspaper of record” in 1913 when it became the first U.S.
newspaper to publish an index of the subjects covered in its pages.
Regardless of how it became known as the authoritative source for
editorial and news content, it is time that we stop calling the NYT the
“newspaper of record” now, especially during this conflict in Ukraine.
The NYT’s March 18th digital headline reads: “130 Rescued from
Mariupol Theater, Official Says.” Beyond the headline and under the
section, “Here are the latest developments in Ukraine,” more details are
provided:
“At least 130 survivors have escaped the ruins of a theater that was
nearly leveled in a Russian attack in the embattled southern city of
Mariupol, a Ukrainian official said on Friday, but hundreds remained
unaccounted for in the wreckage. The city was one of the many under
withering missile bombardment across Ukraine as Ukrainian forces
continued to frustrate Russian troop advances.”
There is more in this section about the millions escaping Ukraine and
the “withering Russian attacks” on the theater. But there is not one
word about the neo-Nazis which, in the case of the city of Mariupol and
that theater, is a very important part of the story. In fact, the AzovBatallion,
an openly Nazi paramilitary group that was consolidated in 2014 to
fight against “pro-Russian separatists,” captured the city of Mariupol
in 2014. To be clear, those designated “pro-Russian separatists” are
the people who, in protest of the US-backed fascist coup in 2014 and in
demand of their democratic rights, voted to secede from Ukraine and
rejoin the Russian Federation.
It is true that we focus a lot on the neo-Nazis in this conflict. It
is not because they are the only and major problem in the conflict. But
the lack of reporting on them in US media is disturbing. Aren’t Nazis
supposed to be the bad guys? You would think it would be easy for
journalists of such a “reputable” publication such as the New York Times to report on the neo-Nazis who took over and now control the city of Mariupol. But no.
Even The Guardian - the British newspaper of note, with at least some standing - reported on the fascists controlling Mariupol back in September 2014.
The reporter focused the article on individual members of the
battalion, particularly one man named Dmitry ( not his real name) who is
quoted at the beginning of the article saying, “I have nothing against
Russian nationalists or a great Russia, But Putin's not even a Russian.
Putin's a Jew." The article continues:
“...there is an increasing worry that while the Azov and other
volunteer battalions might be Ukraine's most potent and reliable force
on the battlefield against the separatists, they also pose the most
serious threat to the Ukrainian government, and perhaps even the state,
when the conflict in the east is over. The Azov causes particular
concern due to the far right, even neo-Nazi, leanings of many of its
members.”
Actually, the good ol’ USA Todayreported
on the neoNazi problem in Ukraine, too, back in 2015. They didn’t even
use the term “neo-Nazis;” They used “Nazis.” In the article, a drill
sergeant named Alex is interviewed. The accompanying picture shows Alex
laughing with an Azov Battalion patch on his jacket. Alex, according to
the article,
“...admitted that he is a Nazi and said with a laugh that no more
than half his comrades are fellow Nazis. He said he supports strong
leadership for Ukraine, like Germany during World War II, but opposes
the Nazis' genocide against Jews. Minorities should be tolerated as long
as they are peaceful and don't demand special privileges, he said, and
the property of wealthy oligarchs should be taken away and nationalized.
He vowed that when the war ends, his comrades will march on the
capital, Kiev, to oust a government they consider corrupt.”
The article, however, goes on to dismiss Russia’s concerns about
these Nazis at their border in eastern Ukraine, claiming: Russian media
exploit such statements to describe the brigade in this port city in
eastern Ukraine as a bunch of thugs who menace the population yet are
embraced by Ukraine's national government.” But it is these same Nazis
who would go on to wage war against and kill mostly ethnic Russian
people for the next 8 years.
It takes a lot of lies
to encourage hatred and promote war. You have to promote hate -- all
repressive governments grasp that and work towards it. If they can make
someone hateful enough -- some outsider -- then they can justify the
failures of their own -- the failures to improve the lives of their own
citizens. Remember that as US President Joe Biden keeps trying to
normalize food shortages. The only response to food shortages in the US
is "Vote the bums out." That's reality. We pay millions in tax
dollars each year and food shortages? Joe Biden was never up to being
president. BAck to the latest war of choice . . . The edtiroial board of WSWS notes:
In a meeting with the US Business Roundtable ahead of the summit,
Biden pointed to the long-running plans that are being put into
practice.
“You know, we are at an inflection point,” Biden said.
“It occurs every three or four generations. As one of the top military
people said to me in a secure meeting the other day, 60 million people
died between 1900 and 1946.”
He added that “now is a time when
things are shifting... There’s going to be a new world order out there,
and we’ve got to lead it.”
The phrase “New World Order” has a long and bloody provenance.
On
September 11, 1990, US President George H.W. Bush gave a speech
entitled “Toward a New World Order.” He declared, “The crisis in the
Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move
toward an historic period.”
As in the present crisis in Ukraine,
the United States maneuvered to have Iraq invade a neighboring country
to provide a pretext for war plans long in the making. The Gulf War
triggered an eruption of US militarism that continued through the wars
in Yugoslavia, the “war on terror” and the invasion of Afghanistan and
Iraq, the US overthrow of the Libyan government, and the years-long
destabilization campaign against Syria.
Biden’s
“New World Order” involves the transition from 30 years of wars and
interventions in the Middle East and Central Asia, which have killed
more than 1 million people, into a conflict targeting Russia and China,
which raises the specter of a Third World War waged with nuclear
weapons.
The headlines in the capitalist press expose the reckless
war mania that has swept over the ruling class, bringing behind it the
affluent middle class. “NATO Plans to Ramp Up Forces on Eastern Flank,”
blared the New York Times. Another article in the Times
stated that “both Russia and the United States have nuclear arms that
are much less destructive—their power just fractions of the Hiroshima
bomb’s force, their use perhaps less frightening and more thinkable.”
David C. Gompert, a former acting director of national intelligence under the Obama administration, wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal
that the US “has more survivable, accurate and reliable offensive
nuclear forces that could further decimate Russia’s strategic deterrent
on the ground. Whatever Russian missiles survive such disarming strikes
would be picked off by US missile defense systems.”
The Putin
regime, confronted with the failure of its plan for a limited war in
Ukraine that was aimed at pressuring NATO to negotiate on its security
concerns, is trying to escape the trap into which it was lured by
resorting to nuclear saber rattling. The world could face a dystopian
crisis that ends in a “big nuclear explosion,” former Russian president
and Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday.
The interaction
of NATO’s recklessness, fueled by a series of intersecting domestic
crises, and Russia’s desperation has created an extraordinarily
explosive situation.
This dangerous escalation must be opposed
through the development of a mass anti-war movement, based on the
international working class.
There is a growing movement of
workers throughout the world against social inequality and exploitation.
The consequences of the war drive are fueling protests and strikes over
soaring inflation and mass poverty.
Partisan and personal loyalties have decided the fate of Iraq's
presidency and premiership, despite all previous vows by populist leader
Moqtada al-Sadr to base his nominations for leadership posts on the
national interest only.
Instead, Iraq seems to be moving away from a system of political
quotas to one based on the accommodation of various players, if not
indeed, plain nepotism.
Sadr chose to nominate Riber Ahmed, the Kurdistan region’s interior
minister and director of the office of party leader Massoud Barzani, for
the position of president of the republic. He has also nominated
Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr, one of his cousins, to serve as the country’s
prime minister.
Iraqi political analysts said that Sadr, who had claimed to be
motivated by a desire to free himself from the yoke of the pro-Iranian
Shia Coordination Framework, has fallen under the control of Massoud
Barzani and accepted his conditions. These included endorsing the
latter’s nominee for the presidency of Iraq, despite the fact that the
candidate is virtually unknown to most Iraqis. Moreover, Ahmed will have
a hard time filling the shoes of a figure of the stature, connections
and overall record of the incumbent Barham Salih.
Analysts said that by agreeing to be swayed by the game of political
accommodation and by choosing a relative with no political record nor
experience as nominee for prime minister, Sadr has shown he is no
different from the rest of the political players who have assumed
leadership positions in the country since the 2003 US invasion. His
opposition to quotas, nepotism and his advocacy of the “national
majority” now ring hollow, they add.
Three days before the appointment of a new president for Iraq, the
tripartite alliance (the Sunni Sovereignty Alliance, the Kurdistan
Democratic Party and the Sadrists) announced the formation of the
largest bloc in parliament under the banner of “Saving the Country”. The
new alliance officially announced the nomination of Riber Ahmed for
president and Mohammad Jaafar al-Sadr as prime minister.
To
be fair to Moqtdaq, he is backing a choice for prime minister that is
different -- since it's hiw own cousin. But nepotisim really wasn't
what the Iraqi people were wanting. He could argue back that without
nepotism, he'd still be a cleark at an Iranian hotel, hiding out from
his many enemies in Iraq.
Today, right now, these
events are unfolding. And the western press is too busy selling war on
Ukraine to take the time to notice just how awful life is for the Iraqi
people and how they have a government that doesn't represent them and
doesn't even offer the pretense that it does.
Images of burnt flesh from napalm bombs, wounded and dead soldiers,
scenes of U.S. soldiers burning the simple huts of Vietnamese villages,
eventually turned the public against the war in Vietnam and produced the
dreaded affliction, from the ruling class point of view, known as the
“Vietnam syndrome.” This collective Post Traumatic Stress Disorder made
it impossible for the public to support any foreign military involvement
for years.
It took the rulers almost three decades to finally cure the public of this affliction. But the rulers were careful.
The brutal reality of what the U.S. was doing in Afghanistan and Iraq
was whitewashed. That is why the images now being brought to the public
by the corporate media are so shocking. It has been more than two
generations since the U.S. public was exposed to the horrific images of
war.
In the 1960s the rulers inadvertently allowed themselves to be
undermined by the new television technology that brought the awful
reality of imperialist war into the homes of the public. Now, the ruling
class operating through its corporate media propaganda arms has been
effectively using Ukraine war propaganda, not to increase Anti-war
sentiment but to stimulate support for more war!
Incredibly also, the propagandists are pushing a line that
essentially says that in the name of “freedom” and supporting Ukraine,
the U.S. public should shoulder the sacrifice of higher fuel and food
prices. This is on top of the inflation that workers and consumers were
already being subjected to coming out of the capitalist covid scandal
that devastated millions of workers and the lower stratums of the petit
bourgeoisie.
But the war, and now the unfair shouldering of all of the costs of
the capitalist crisis of 2008 - 2009, and the impact of covid by the
working classes in the U.S., amounts to a capitalist tax. It is levied
by the oligarchy on workers to subsidize the defense of the interests of
big capital and the conditions that have produced obscene profits, even
in the midst of the covid crisis and now, the Ukraine war.
These policies are criminal. While the U.S. continues to pretend that
it champions human rights around the world, the failure of the state to
protect the fundamental human rights of the citizens and residents in
the U.S. is obvious to all, but spoken about by the few, except the Chinese government.
For those who might think that the Chinese criticism of the U.S. is
only being driven by politics, and it might be, just a cursory,
objective examination of the U.S. state policies over just the last few
years reveals a shocking record of systematic human rights abuses that
promise to become even more acute as a consequence of the manufactured U.S./NATO war in Ukraine.
Isaiah's
latest THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Lyin' With Biden." Caught in another
lie, Joe Biden howls again. A child asks, "What's that boy? You were
arrested on the streets of Soweto? Trying to meet with Nelson Mandela?
And you wrote that law?" A woman asks of the child, "Is that Pete
Buttigeieg?" Another woman replies, "I think it's Timmy -- like in
Lassie and Timmy." Isaiah archives his comics at THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS.
Joe Biden is a disaster. You see that in the grocery store and you see it at the gas pumps. He's destroying our lives.
Monday, March 21, 2022. JACOBIN whores for the IRaq War.
Over
the weekend, the Iraq War hit the 19th mark, 19 years and still going.
Will US troops ever leave Iraq? At this rate, no. And we know how the
corporate media in the US did their part to start the illegal war and
to keep it going. We address that fact constatly. We've also noted,
over the years, how Pandhandle Media -- the beggar media -- send money,
send money -- also keeps the illegal war going. This anniversary?
Silence from the beggar media for the most part.
To
be clear, when we don't get silence from them on Iraq, we don't get
much of anything. They do af, "It's 19 years old" statement and then
rush to offer what everone knew back when Bully Boy Bush occupied the
White House. Nothing as recent as two years prior is ever offered
because they don't pay attention to Iraq. They can show up to do their
useless segments and writing that would be the same if they wrote it ten
years ago but they can't talk about Iraq today -- the political
stalemate, the protests (more and more over rising costs), the large
number of women being murdered (Juare is apparently the furthest US
'feminists' will allow their minds to wonder when women are being
targeted), etc.
Enter JACOBIN
and Saif Ansari -- the latter of whom bill shimself as "Philosopher,
lawyer and writer. Indian American/Muslim atheist." SOmeone break it to
the idiot that Muslim isn't a race, it's a religion so, if you bill
yourself as an aehist, you're not a Mulsim. Basics are hard for Saif as
he makes clear when writing about Iraq for Jacobin -- a place he
doesn't normally cover but apparently someone at JACOBIN felt that the
piece was needed and theyf armed it out to Saif as one of the non-White
guys they actually have working at JACOBIN. Isn't that just another
form of colinialism?
At any rate, Saif starts out his piece
slamming US President Joe Biden which is more than fair. Joe is
president and the war continues under his watch. Joe supported the war
in the US Senate. And then, the whole thing quickly falls apart. The
first section with huge pro lems:
And yet not even during the heated final debate of the primaries in
2020 did Bernie Sanders (who had voted against the invasion in 2002 as a
representative of Vermont) make the case — which he had alluded to on
the campaign trail more than once — that Biden was unfit to serve as president because of what was, in Sanders’s view, “the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of the United States.”
Elizabeth Warren, another candidate who had called the Iraq War a mistake, also failed to challenge Biden’s historical defense of the invasion — from denying that he had ever believed Hussein possessed WMDs to lamenting
that the only mistake he had made was to trust the Bush administration.
When asked whether Biden was to blame, Warren — a legal academic who
had begun her political career taking on the president over the 2005 bankruptcy bill — demurred.
In fact, the most strenuous criticism against Biden’s role in the
Iraq War was leveled in March 2020 by an air force veteran who accused Biden of having the blood of fellow service members on his hands. But despite his overtures that he had come to regret his support for the war — which became increasingly unpopular in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party in subsequent years — Biden never learned from his mistake.
Eleven years after the intervention in Libya’s [. . .]
Tulsi
Gabbard? Isn't that the name that belongs in the above? Yes, it is.
Caling Tulsi out for fake assery isn't a popular move. We don't worry
about popularity here. We worry about the truth. SO we won't just be
Abby Martin saying her name on a JaACOBIN podcast and then laughing.
No, we'll actually go there as we did in real time. In the final debate
that candidate Tulsi made the stage for, we were all expecting the big
showdown. This was anti-war Tulsi. She'd played that anti-war arm
chair zealot over and over. And the war, she'd tell voters over and
over, was her biggest issue. It effected everything -- including how
much money we had to spend on other issues -- needed issues.
Bill
de Blasio and others had confronted Joe during the debqtes of the
candidates for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Tulsi
hadn't. And she had an excuse, she wasn't on the stage with him. The
field was so crowded back then that they had to divide them up into
groups.
So she'd go on MSNBC, for example, on June 26,
2019 and slam Joe for his actions regarding Iraq but she wasn't on
stage with him.
But Wednesay, July 31st,
she was finally on stage with Joe Biden. And big talking Tulsi, whose
big issue was the war, was on stage with Joe Biden who voted for the
IRaq, War, who did a pre-war hearing that was stakced with war
supporters though Joe tried to pretend it was fair and balanced, the man
who voted over and over to keep funding the war, the man whod efended
it over and over (despite his 2019 lie that he had turned on the wr the
minute bombs started ropping). Here was Tulsi's chance to finally take
the fight to Joe.
It was going to be an epic throwdown, right?
Wrong.
We recounted it at lenght and repeatedly over and over. For example, see the next day's snapshot.
Joe
Biden was on the ropes. He was struggling and he could have been
eliminated that night. If Tulsi had done the job she should have, he
could have been out of the primary.
But
instead, she decided to take out Kamala Harris. Jimmy Dore rightly
points out that Kamala ended up without any support at all. Throughout
the entire thing, the long process, no one was flacking to her. He's
right. But he is someone who has some allegience to Tulsi that is
greater than his allegiance to the truth. Now I'll overlook that on
Jimmy. He speaks out on many important topics. And I'll defend her
from the lunatic attacks from WHoopi Goldberg and others.
But I'm not going to pretend that we saw Tulsi was a whore at the debates.
Read
the transcript -- or read the snapshot -- because Tulsi went after
Kamala and Kamala was no threat. She was never going to get the
nomination. She had no large base of support. Most women did not rally
to her. African-Americans in the south did not relate to her.
But Tulsi used her time and her ammo on Kamala. Not on Joe.
Her
defenders -- and, sadly, that included BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- would
make excuses for her. There was no excuse. Joe Biden was the choice of
the establishment and he was being carried by the corporate meid and
covered and pimped by them.
She should have taken out Joe.
Sher refused to do so.
If
you missed that debate, you may join the liars and insist that she was
making statements and -- B.S. That's a damn lie. Jake Tapper was a
moderator. He specifically called on her regarding Joe Biden and he was
puzzled -- watch his face -- by her remarks which were rescuing Joe and
excusing his actions.
He looks like he's
wondering if she understood the question. SO he then goes back to her
for a second time and is more specific. And Tulsi again takes a pass.
That
night, the next day and through the weekend, Tulsi shows up where ever
she could on TV and repeatedly insisted that Joe said his vote was wrong
and that was good enough for her.
His actions
wnet far beyond just his initial vote but Tulsi buried that in hre
comments and buried Joe's Iraq issues for the press. When the
self-promoted anti-war candidate told the American people and the press
that Joe had nothing to apologize for or make amends for that everything
was fine? There was no longer a story there. The media wants
conflict. And it wants conflict is can hide behind to pretend to be
objective. Had Tulsi held Joe accountable on the stage, the issue of
the Iraq War would have been forced itno the conversation by the
national press.
My allegiance is not to any politician.
Tulsi
is one of the reasons Joe Biden is in the White House. She had the
chance to tak ehim out and instead aimed her fire at Kamala. People
like pig Michael Tracey were overjoyed.
What
they refuse to admit now is that Tulsi gave the nomination to Joe on
that night in July of 2019. They refuse to also admit that the woman
Tulsi 'destroyed' on stage is now Vice President of the United States.
So exactly how badly did Tulsi destroy Kamala?
It was pure fake assery.
Dennis
Kucinich left people in tears in Boston back in 2004 at the DNC
convention. I didn't defend him. I told the young teenagers who were
crying in the open -- especially one young woman -- that Dennis didn't
deserve them. That they had more integrity and more ethics than he ever
would.
I don't whore for a politician. I hold them accountable.
It's
a shame that no one wants to hold Tulsi accountable. It's how we will
get another Bernie Fake Ass SAnders to divert us all and we will pour
energies into him and risk our own health to try to deliver the
nomination to him and he will sell us out and try to use us as his fan
clubm.
JACOBIN trets Tulsi as an aside because
they get vicious feedback. I don't care what the e-mails to the public
account are like. I will defend her right to speak. I will defend her
from vicious attacks on her patritoism. I will not, however, pretend
that she's anti-war or that she will speak with an anti-war voice.
She betrayed everyone and she needs to be held accountable.
Saif writes:
American voters used to give a damn about the Iraq War. In 2008, Barack Obama leveraged
widespread discontent with the war to secure the Democratic nomination,
courting progressives and young people alike. In fact, it’s widely
believed that Hillary Clinton lost
to the senator from Illinois not just because she had voted for the war
— and was instrumental in rallying ambivalent Democrats to the cause —
but because Obama had decried the invasion from the start.
Where do you start with that garbage.
American voters used to give a damn about the Iraq War?
The voters are the ones who walked away?
I
don't remember the voters issuing a statement the week after the
November 2008 election stating that they were shutting down. No, that
was United for Peace and Justice which made a ton of money off the war.
But they then used their organization to shelter elected Democrats and
theywhore to get Barack into the White House. Leslie Cagan is a grown
ass woman and then some -- the whiskers on her chin prove that. But the
woman who's too cowardly to tell a board meeting that she's a Community
-- she is one -- is the same woman who whored for Barack and didn't
want to be around to hold him accoutnable.
They lied. They lied to the voters and told them Barack was an anti-war candidate.
He wasn't. He never was.
The
media stuck in on Iraq just a little bit longer. As 2008 drew to a
close, newspapers and networks in the US announced that they were
closing BAghdad desks ABC announced that anything that happened in Iraq
could be covered by their using BBC coverage of the war.
So the 'leaders' deserted and then the US news deserted all before Janaury 2009 and yet the person JACOBIN blames is voters?
When
we do our Zooms there are always students who will say they showed up
thinking this was going to be historical, a look at what had been done
to Iraq. They didn't realize that it was still being done. I don't
them blame them or attack them. I understand why they don't know about
Iraq, the corporate media doesn't cover it and the so-calleldl
politicians who care (Barbara Lee) won't mention it.
Saif
writes tht ''some believe'' Barack used Iraq to destroy Hillary's
chances. Some believe that? It was his whole argument advanced by his
suppoters. as well as by himself. It demonstrated his supposed superior
judgment.
We heard tht over and over. And
we saw CODESTINK bird dog Hillary while avoid him despite the fact that
hew as voting for the Iraq War once he was in office.
No, he did not vote for the 2002 authorization of the war. He was not in the US Senate at the time so he could not vote for it.
Patricia
J. Williamson was a typical whore for Barack. Despite being a law
professor, and presumably understanding what ethics are, she wnet on
KPFA and lied on THE MORNING SHOW about how Barack, in 2002, had voted
against the Iraq War. When confronted with her lie by a caller, Patty
refused to admit the truth.
Saif wants you to know that Barack was agains the war from the start.
But he wasn't.
He
was against it enough to give a tiny speech. It was so smallt hat iwas
insignificant. Footage existed of it -- I'm still friends with the
person who asked Barack tp speak in Chicago that day. But the turnout
was small. So 2008 campaign decided to 'recrete' it and the press let
them do that. I've seen the original. It's not inspiring, the voice
doesn't soar. Hes not impressive in his remarks or in his delivery. So
they shot it several years later and the press let him get away with
it.
Why dods it matter?
I
mentioned Boston 2004, remember. I was there. I was there when he
gave that lousy speech at the convention. Matthew Rothschild called it
out in THE PROGRESSIVE. It was a war speech. And then, three years
later, Matty wants to whore for Barack and begins praising the speech.
That's what a whore does, erase the past.
And that's what JACOBIN's doing.
It
was in Boston that THE NEW YORK TIMES asked Barack -- anti-war Barack
-- about he Iraq War and noted that the top of the ticket, John Kerry
had voted for it. Barack pointed out that he wasn't in Congress and
said he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in Congress.
When Bill Clinton raised this point, he was smeared as a racist. We've repeatedly noted Bill's criticue over the years
But since you raised the judgment issue, let's go over this
again. That is the central argument for his campaign. 'It doesn't
matter that I started running for president less a year after I got to
the Senate from the Illinois State Senate. I am a great speaker and a
charismatic figure and I'm the only one who had the judgment to oppose
this war from the beginning. Always, always, always.' " "First it
is factually not true that everybody that supported that resolution
supported Bush attacking Iraq before the UN inspectors were through.
Chuck Hagel was one of the co-authors of that resolution. The only
Republican Senator that always opposed the war. Every day from the
get-go. He authored the resolution to say that Bush could go to war
only if they didn't co-operate with the inspectors and he was assured
personally by Condi Rice as many of the other Senators were. So, first
the case is wrong that way." "Second, it is wrong
that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior
judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating
the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could
you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004*
and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever
since?' Give me a break."This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale
I've ever seen...
I
dictate the snapshots. I am not looking at the above. I mention that
because as we repeatedly returned to that quote, we would add more links
to it to back up what Bill was saying. My friend's pulled that from a piece I did with Ava back in 2011.
I steered him to that because I'm hopning it has all the links in it.
If it doesn't do the research yourself. I'd also recommend the piece
for THIRD entitled "The Temple Prostitutes in the Cult of St. Barack."
JACOBIN fits in that same temple with the other prostitues when they publish garbage like this.
And I'm not even at the half-way mark on that awful article.
How does the Iraq War continue? Be cause of whoring like what JAOCBIN posted that never hodls anyone acountable.
Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "We Feed Them" went up Saturday night.
And you can pair that with this video from Jimmy Dore.
