Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel): 6/7/20

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Racist Joe Biden needs to apologize and then he needs to stop offering his take on Black -- his racist take

I'm really getting tired of Joe Biden's racism and his supporters efforts to pretend it doesn't exist.

I was ticket off Friday and I'm still ticked off.

Here are some videos addressing Joe's latest racism where he made an insulting remark about Dr. Martin Luther King.

I am not in the mood for Joe Biden or for his racism.

He is factually incorrect about the impact of MLK's assassination.

More to the point, is it the Black, Joe? Why the hell would you compare George Floyd to MLK?

MLK was a leader. He was assassinated by the government.

George Floyd was just someone like me or my kids who got murdered by the police.

Floyd was murdered for his skin color.

Dr. King was assassinated because the power structure -- a power structure Joe is part of -- lived in fear of what MLK had accomplished and could accomplish.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Friday, June 12, 2020. The talks between the US and Iraq yield only vague pledges, Joe Biden -- of all people -- wants to talk about stealing elections -- except as it relates to him.

Starting in Iraq, REUTERS notes, "Iraq and the United States have affirmed their commitment to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq without giving a timeline, state news agency INA said on Friday, citing Iraq’s Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi." Is anyone leaving Iraq? There's nothing that says anyone's leaving. Equally true, Mustafa's original statement to the press was that all US troops were leaving Iraq. He had to walk that one back. Louisa Loveluck (WASHINGTON POST via STARS AND STRIPES) notes, "Seventeen years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the talks, which began Thursday, focus on a wide range of issues. Thorniest among them is the question of foreign troop presence: Iraq's parliament has urged the U.S.-led coalition to leave, and Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi is under pressure to satisfy that demand without risking security gaps that Islamic State fighters might exploit." Of the alleged 5200 US troops on Iraqi soil, how many would be leaving? Probably none.

It's hard to believe that if there was any real advance on this issue one side -- or both -- wouldn't be trumpeting it. Especially considering how quickly Mustafa ran to the press with his 'all US troops are leaving' claim. And "alleged"? There is no verification and the US government tosses out the unconfirmed number of 5,200. The 5200 would not include a number of additional service members that were present for surveillance operations, special-ops, etc.

Not only has no number been given for any troops being withdrawn -- actual number, percentage, nothing, Loveluck quotes US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs stating, "There was no discussion of a timeline."

Jack Detsch (FOREIGN POLICY) adds:

The Trump administration is worried that Iraq is falling short on human rights obligations to detainees and is hampered by widespread corruption, according to a State Department assessment obtained by Foreign Policy, as the United States kicks off talks on Thursday that will help determine the future of the U.S. presence in the war-torn country.
As thousands of Islamic State prisoners sit in lengthy and sometimes undocumented pretrial detention that may pose constitutional questions, the Iraqi legal system is bogged down by an insufficient number of judges, overflowing facilities, and the use of bribes, a snapshot of Iraq’s corruption challenges that kicked off widespread anti-government protests last year.

Falling short on human rights obligations and widespread corruption?

Yes, that is why the ongoing protests, which started September 30th, have been taking place in Iraq.

Let's turn to Killer Joe Biden. Killer Joe wanted the Iraq War. All the Purell in the world won't remove the blood from his hands.

Dithering Joe the killer.

Where do we go from here?

Let's stay with the killing for a moment.

FRANC ANALYSIS. We noted that in yesterday's snapshot. There are people who are supposedly independent that are now trying to tell you who to vote for. Trying to tell grown ass people who to vote for. Because we're all too stupid, right?

It's the come-to-Jesus tale. It's supposed to motivate you to do the same. We called it out in 2008 -- the laughable liars the DEMOCRACY NOW! brought on. Especially, the liar who is also a lousy daughter because she claimed her mother was ill, implying the end any moment, but she goes to Denver for a convention she's not paid to be at, not obligated to be at? Remember that liar? She was a Hillary supporter who had gone over to Barack and we were supposed to relate to her and follow her lead. Of course, she was a f**king liar, a piece of trash who thought she could con the American people. Liars always trip up. She was a firm supporter of Hillary -- when? If you listened to her remarks after they moved on to another topic, you quickly grasped that she started supporting Barack in February of 2007 for the 2008 election. Exactly when was she ever a Hillary supporter?

Lying whores. We don't need them.

So Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski want to trick you.

They think it's important because of the violence in the US.

What about the violence the US does around the world?

Kathy Kelly stumbles around useless (intentionally -- her career would argue "Yes!") at COUNTERPUNCH offering:

And if we’re to learn how to live together without killing one another, how can we dismantle and repurpose the vast killing machine that protects our unfair white privilege?

White privilege exists. But let's stop pretending that the US government isn't at war with the Muslim world. Let's stop pretending that it was an accident or an 'overreach' to round up and jail Muslims after 9/11. These were planned actions. And it is the height of xenophobia to look the other way regarding Joe Biden's actions in the Arab world. Franco notes this Tweet by Richard Medhurst:

Kyle and Krystal are saying they might vote for Biden because Trump crossed the line when he deployed the military. Which essentially means “we’re fine with our imperialist military on OTHER PEOPLE’S streets just not ours”. Your american exceptionalism and privilege is showing.

The Arab world has suffered because of people like Joe Biden. This notion that he's an answer and you need to herd people over to him?

He's a bloody killer who never did a thing in his life except hide away in Congress.

When he was draft age, he didn't serve. Though he played football and baseball in high school and college, when it came to go to the draft board what did Joe claim? Asthma. His asthma wouldn't let him serve. What a load of, yes, malarkey.

He has no shame.

I don't know what to say here. On the one hand, I try to grasp that the American people are poorly served by their media but it's 10 years since Iraq held elections in March of 2010. Yes, the media did a lousy job covering it. But at some point, grow the hell up and take responsibility for yourself.

If you aren't put off by Joe's words in the clip above then you either don't care about other people or you're not just trying to inform yourself.

Karma. That's the word that would be applied should Donald do what Joe's floating.

It would be karma for Joe.

In 2010, Iraq held elections.

The Iraqi people voted out thug Nouri al-Maliki.

But Nouri got a second term.

How did that happen?

If you don't know by now that's on you. If you're not watching the coverage of Joe's remarks and not being appalled, that's on you.

No one else at this late date.

Your government does things in public? It's your job to know about it. Or else just shut up about who to vote for. Truly, no one needs your ignorance.

In 2010, the world knew Nouri was a thug. Sunnis were targeted and being disappeared. Secret prisons and torture centers -- the kind Saddam Hussein ran and we were supposedly outraged by -- were back in Iraq.

But that didn't matter to the US government.

They wanted Nouri to get a second term.

So Joe sold The Erbil Agreement -- a legal contract signed off on by all the leaders of Iraq. It ignored the results, overturned them, and gave Nouri a second term.

How did they get others to sign off?

By lying. They said the contract was legally binding and had the full backing of the US -- and written into the contract were certain things that the various blocs wanted.

They lied.

The contract was used to give Nouri the second term and then ignored.

And the US government did nothing. Despite their earlier lies.

That's bad but let's zoom in on the overturning.

'Liberation' and 'democracy' were the terms people in the US government -- Democrats and Republicans -- used to describe the Iraq War.

But when there was time to show what democracy was and how elections work, the US government -- led by Joe Biden (he was Barack's lead on Iraq) -- shredded any hopes of democracy. The people risked everything to vote -- including their lives. And they voted real change, voting Nouri out.

And Joe Biden backed Nouri. Joe didn't back democracy. Nouri was a thug and that didn't matter to Joe. Nothing did except keeping the thug in power.

The message this sent to the Iraqi people? Election turnout has gotten lower as a result. They are in the streets because the ballot box has failed them repeatedly.

Joe wants to talk about stolen elections? Then the press needs to ask him to justify giving Nouri a second term after the Iraqi people said no.

Let's again note the August 2015 broadcast of Kevin Sylvester's THIS SUNDAY EDITION (CBC) which featured Emma Sky discussing Iraq:

Emma Sky: And that [2010] national election was a very closely contested election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate in that election. They'd become convinced that politics was the way forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and not violence. To people who had previously been insurgents, people who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that election. And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki, lost by 2 seats. And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and no sectarianism. And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.

Kevin Sylvester: People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.

Emma Sky: Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus. And Maliki refused to accept the results. He just said, "It is not right." He wanted a recount. He tried to use de-Ba'athification to eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes that they had gained. And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat. And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system about what to do? So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the government for thirty days. And he didn't think Allawi would be able to do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that was his recommendation.

Kevin Sylvester: Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden -- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will support and then they do a complete switch around. What happened?

Emma Sky: Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to be there. He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general who'd been there for year after year after year.

Kevin Sylvester: Chris Hill.

Emma Sky: And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia strongman. Maliki's our man. Maliki's our friend. Maliki will give us a follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.' So it looks as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation. And the problem -- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki. People were very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian, that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national election." So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him. So when Biden made clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this caused a huge upset with Iraqiya. They began to fear that America was plotting with Iran in secret agreement. So they moved further and further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with Maliki. And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya, they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war through the 'surge.' But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him. And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of the country by the end of 2011. So during this period, Americans got outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp because they'd guaranteed his second term.

Kevin Sylvester: Should-should the Obama administration been paying more attention? Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something. This is a guy you definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq. How much of what has happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration? Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it -- not Hillary.] How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is at their feet?

Emma Sky: Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010. And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq. She did appoint the ambassador but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself. You know, he understands identity more than many people. He understands multiple identities and how identities can change. He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British. That's how things are." So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war. For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics -- the poisonous politics. And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals. He was determined he was never going to lose an election again. So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process. He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.] He didn't pay them. He subverted the judiciary. And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!" And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki." And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better.

Emma Sky is the author of THE UNRAVELING: HIGH HOPES AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES IN IRAQ.

Wednesday night was a group post night with the topic of what live TV production NBC and FOX need to do next: Ann's "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," Marcia's "Jelly's Last Jam," Rebecca's "jamaica," Stan's "MEMPHIS," Mike's "THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE," Trina's "Pajama Game," Ruth's "I CAN GET IT FOR YOU WHOLESALE," Elaine's "THE FANTASTICKS," Betty's "SOPHISTICATED LADIES" and Kat's "BEAUTIFUL."

The following sites updated:

Thursday, June 11, 2020

VIPER to the moon?

Lisa Taylor e-mails me asking me why I don't highlight the Moon rover? "Always Curiosity." She sounds a bit like Jan Brady.

I highlight Curiosity, our land rover on Mars, because I've been covering Curiosity since 2012. I've been following the Mars mission.

The moon mission? I honestly know nothing about it, Lisa, and didn't even know there was a rover on the Moon until I read your e-mail. And turns out, there's not one.

VIPER. That's the name of the rover that is scheduled to be on the moon in 2023. VIPER stands for Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover.

Here are some videos.

This is from CNN:

NASA selected a 13-year-old company, Astrobotic, to deliver a "water-hunting" robot to the Moon's surface in late 2023, the space agency announced Thursday.

The Pittsburgh-based company will receive $199.5 million under the new fixed-price contract, which tasks the company with building and testing a lander spacecraft that can ferry NASA's robotic rover, VIPER, to the lunar surface.

After the VIPER rover launches into space aboard a rocket, Astrobotic's lunar lander, called Griffin, will carry VIPER on the last leg of its 239,000-mile trip, taking it from orbit to a soft landing at the Moon's south pole. (NASA and Astrobotic said Thursday that they have not yet decided which rocket will be used for this mission.)

So that's some news about VIPER. Now we have to do a video of Curiosity because Lisa's right, I love Curiosity. :D

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, June 11, 2020. The US and Iraq are engaging in talks to determine the future relationship between the two countries, the State Dept has released their annual report on religious freedom around the world, JEZEBEL details the very real issues at play in the attacks on Tara Reade, and much more.

Yesterday at the US State Dept in DC, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo declared:

On Iraq: The Government of Iraq has agreed to the Strategic Dialogue proposed in April, beginning tomorrow. Under Secretary Hale will lead that discussion with the representatives from Department of Defense, Treasury, Energy, and other agencies, and their Iraqi counterparts.
In keeping with previous dialogues based on our 2008 Strategic Framework Agreement, the dialogue will cover all of the areas of interest between our two countries: politics, economics, security, culture, and energy.
With new threats on the horizon, including the global coronavirus pandemic, collapsed oil prices, and a large budget deficit, it’s imperative that the United States and Iraq meet as strategic partners to plan a way forward for the mutual benefit of each of our two nations.

Yesterday a dialogue started between the governments of Iraq and the United States. It continues today.

Larry Luxner (The Atlantic Council) notes:

On the verge of crucial strategic talks between the United States and Iraq set to take place on June 10, former Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohamed Ali Alhakim said the process is a necessary, long-planned step in ongoing bilateral ties between Baghdad and Washington.
But he took pains to call the process a dialogue involving the US government and the sovereign state of Iraq, one which will define the Pentagon’s future presence in Iraq as well as non-military aspects of the relationship including education, energy, culture, trade, and foreign investment.
“Here in the local papers, they’re calling it negotiations, but we are not negotiating anything,” Alhakim said. “It’s an agreement signed by the two sides. The only thing we need to do is figure out the bits and pieces.”
Speaking June 9 in a webinar with Abbas Kadhim, director of the Atlantic Council’s Iraq Initiative, Alhakim noted that because of COVID-19, the upcoming talks will be held virtually—a departure from the long-standing arrangement of alternating the sessions every six months between Washington and Baghdad.

AFP quotes the Middle East Institute's Robert Ford who declares, "The entire US-Iraq bilateral relationship will not be fixed in a single day. But for once, we seem to have the right people in the right place at the right time." May 7th, Mustafa al-Kahdemi became the latest prime minister of Iraq. Ali Mamouri (AL-MONITOR) notes that the talks were accompanied with a rocket attack on Baghdad.

Ali Mamouri also notes that unlike Adel Abdel Mahdi, the previous prime minister, al-Kahdemi "included the strategic dialogue with the United States as part of his plan of action presented to the parliament. The plan, which was approved by the parliament, does not mention the departure of US troops from the country." MIDDLE EAST ONLINE cites two unnamed Iraqi government officials who state "Kahdemi has been invited to the White House this year, a diplomatic olive branch his predecessor Adel Abdel Mahdi had never received." Mahdi did call for US withdrawl but did so only after he had resigned (and over a month after Parliament accepted his resignation). While that might explain the lack of invitation to the White House since January (when he called for withdrawal of US forces), it doesn't explain why there was no invitation since October 2018 (when he became prime minister). Mahdi had huge support in the US from the intelligence community which had been pimping him as the answer to Iraq ('liberating' it or just controlling it) since 2006. ALJAZEERA offers the following prediction:

The main event will be the fate of US-led troops, deployed in Iraq from 2014 to head a military coalition fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) group.

"Whatever comes out of the dialogue is going to set the future of our strategic relationship," an American official from the coalition told the AFP news agency.

"Am I still going to fly surveillance drones or not? Do you still want our intelligence?" he added.

The coalition has already consolidated to just three bases in recent months, down from a dozen, and the talks would likely bring a further drawdown.
"There are no details yet on troop levels, but the US draft on a joint statement mentions a 'reduction of US forces'," one senior Iraqi official told AFP.

ALJAZEERA also offers this video report by Simona Foltyn.

Simona Foltyn explains in the video above, "The US and the Iraqi governments both appear to favor a partial reduction of troops but the question is whether they will agree on the terms that will govern their future presence. Whatever the outcome, the dialogue is likely to usher in a new chapter of US - Iraqi relations." So the withdrawal -- not drawdown -- that the world wants, that Iraq needs, is not likely to happen according to the media.

John Davison (REUTERS) accompanied the current prime minister of Iraq to Mosul yesterday. He reports:

Three years ago, the world
rejoiced when Iraqi forces backed by the United States and Iran
liberated this ancient city from the brutal rule of Islamic
State. The people of Mosul hoped to rebuild their shattered
lives.
    Today, a different battle plays out.
    Taking place largely behind the scenes, from legislative
halls that overlook the city's bombed-out streets to hotel
meeting rooms in Baghdad, it is a power struggle among parties,
politicians and militiamen. Some are backed by Iran. Others
favour the United States.
    At stake: political control of Nineveh province, of which
Mosul is capital – a region rich in natural resources and a link
in a supply route from Tehran to the Mediterranean. The route
serves Iran-backed militias, Washington's fiercest enemy here
since the defeat of Islamic State.
    Iran's allies had been winning. They installed a governor
favoured by Tehran a year ago. But then anti-government
protests, U.S. sanctions and the assassination of Iran's
military mastermind Qassem Soleimani challenged Iranian
influence. The pro-Western camp replaced the Nineveh governor
with a longtime U.S. ally.
    The contest mirrors a wider struggle over the future of Iraq
itself.
    Speaking to Reuters over the span of a year, around 20 Iraqi
officials involved in the political tussle over Nineveh
described how Iran and its allies developed the networks to
influence local government, how pro-Western officials tried to
hit back, and how this tug of war has crippled Mosul's recovery.
If any side prevails, many of these insiders believe, it will
ultimately be the side aligned with Iran. Iran helps its allies
with money, political backing and sticks with them, explained
Nineveh councilor Ali Khdeir. The United States, in contrast,
"has left no real mark on Iraq."

Dropping back to the May 28th Iraq snapshot:

MIDDLE EAST MONITOR ONLINE reports that Iraqi Brigadier General Yahya Rasoul is insisting that ISIS "has already been vanquished, no longer poses a threat to Iraq." Unfortunately, reality slaps Rasoul in the face. ISIS has never been vanquished.

Monday, ALMASDAR NEWS reported, "The Iraqi security forces announced on Monday that an Iraqi military plane was hit by terrorist forces in the Al-Rutbah Desert during an operation to destroy Islamic State" Iraqi security forces said a member of ISIS had "14.5 mm mono weapon and fired at one of the planes, lightly wounding the plane." Doesn't sound like it's been vanquished or that it no longer poses as a threat. Monday night, David Rose (THE AUSTRALIAN) reported:

Islamic State has waged its deadliest terrorism campaign in Iraq for nearly two years, raising fears jihadists are staging a resurgence.

In the past month, since the start of Ramadan, Islamic State (also known as ISIS) has claimed responsibility for more than 260 attacks across Iraq, allegedly killing or wounding 426 people.

The attacks form part of the group’s self-proclaimed “battle of attrition” campaign, which also has inspired violence by Islamic State branches in Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Niger, Congo and Mozambique in recent weeks.

Alissa J. Rubin, Lara Jakes and Eric Schmitt (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

The assailants came at dusk, creeping on foot through the dusty palm groves near the Tigris River, armed only with a rocket-propelled grenade, a light machine gun and Kalashnikovs. They had laid roadside bombs to kill anyone who rushed to help the unsuspecting local guards, who were in their sights.

When the attack on the village last month was over, nine members of a Sunni tribe that had opposed the Islamic State were dead and four were wounded, one of them nearly burned to death.

This is the Islamic State in Iraq in 2020: low-tech, low-cost, rural, but still lethal. And while it has not carried out attacks on the scale that it did a few years ago, the number of attacks has begun to grow again.

As American and Iraqi negotiators begin a new round of strategic talks on Thursday, the question of how to respond to the Islamic State’s quiet resurgence — and how much American help is required to do so — will be at the center of the discussion.

We called out the lie on May 28th because it was a lie. It's a shame the military spokesperson felt he could lie, it's a bigger shame that no one in the press called him out in real time.

Calling out? Some have called Tara Reade out. She's the woman with the credible allegation that Joe Biden assaulted her in 1993 when she was working in his office. Rubbish like Michael Tracey have tried to attack her because they can't attack her charges. They pretend that talking about her unpaid bills somehow tells you whether or not she was raped -- in their biased minds, only women of wealth can be raped.

A narrative has emerged from this reporting that ties questions of Reade’s trustworthiness to her financial background. Economic class is brought in as character evidence. At JEZEBEL, Tracy Clark-Flory observes:

In May, the New York Times published a lengthy report that forwards this framing. It spins Reade’s economic background, financial struggles, and history of intimate partner violence into a tale of a “messy life,” a “tumultuous journey,” a “shambolic life.” As the article puts it, “If the national stage is new for Ms. Reade, the sturm and drang is anything but.” Much of that “sturm and drang” relates to abuse and poverty, yet the piece includes no discussion of how these two things are cyclical and interconnected. Instead, in the Times piece and others like it, a case is made for the way that trouble has followed Reade around—the implication being that she creates it.

Reade’s class permeates the Times’ discussion of Reade’s time working in Biden’s office in the 1990s. “The Biden Senate world was populated by striving Type A’s, and had a small-c conservative culture in which Ms. Reade didn’t quite fit,” the piece reads. “Former aides remember her as prone to storytelling and oversharing personal information.” It continues to note that she “rarely socialized with colleagues after work” and chafed “at the Ivy League tilt of the staff” while :arguing for more interns from state schools.” These facts set the stage for interpreting Reade through the lens of an outsider, that she didn’t gel with the staff is seen as a telling detail of her character.

Additionally, the Times reports that Biden’s office manager “admonished [Reade] to dress more modestly,” which not only has potential class insinuations but also recalls the long history of sexual assault victims being assessed by their clothing. This is not the first time reporters have clung to the subject of Reade’s attire in Biden’s office. Previously, in late May, Buzzfeed interviewed former Biden staffers and “two people brought up the clothes [Reade] wore to work—specifically recalling that she wore capes and dressed in a ‘hippie’ style.” Cara Ameer, then a legislative correspondent, said, “You were in a professional environment, so you wanted to be professional in every way—to look and act that way.” Ameer added, “She definitely seemed to me to march to her own drum. Maybe she didn’t like us. Maybe she thought we were a bunch of preppy Capitol Hill staffer types. If there was a mold of a Capitol Hill staffer, I would kinda say we probably fit it. We were well dressed.”

The assessment of her dress is not merely aesthetic but rather mired in class-based assumptions. This evaluation recalls Paula Jones, who in 1994 alleged that Bill Clinton exposed himself to her. (Note that Jones’ allegation came a year after Reade alleges that she was assaulted by Biden. ) In return, she was relentlessly mocked as low class: James Carville famously responded to her allegation by saying, “If you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” A journalist from Newsweek referenced her reputation as “just some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.” Four years later, Jones got a makeover and the Washington Post’s Robin Givhan wrote: “Her braces are gone. She has smoothed the frizzy mane of curls that once reached to such dazzling heights. Her makeup is now subtle and based on natural, not neon, hues. Her clothing is inspired by the boardroom instead of the secretarial pool.” By modeling herself on the aesthetics of DC’s professional set, Givhan wrote that Jones had “embraced the markers of dignity, refinement and power.” Most relevantly: the markers of class. “She is not white trash. She is not a big-haired floozy,” her spokesperson said of the image overhaul.

The Times continues its focus on Reade as an outsider in discussing a later job as an aide for State Senator Jack O’Connell, reporting that “two people familiar with her tenure said she regularly failed to appear at constituent meetings.” Then, “as the complaints about her work continued, Ms. Reade confessed that she was having a hard time at home, these people recalled.” Those hard times are unspecified, but the Times notes that Reade had feared for her safety after her then-husband, Ted Dronen, responded to news of her pregnancy by “slamming things around the house.” The Times continues, “She was given a lighter schedule, but when the behavior repeated itself, she and the office agreed to part ways.” The “behavior repeated itself” is an awfully blameful way to refer to a woman who is, it is implied, struggling at work alongside fear of her own husband. The Times fails to note research showing, as a Purdue University report puts it, that the impacts of domestic violence can “lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity.”

Tara Reade's allegation was credible and remains credible. Assaults and smears on her do not change her allegation. Assaults and smears do not erase the corroborating witnesses she has. The attacks and smears on her have taken place with far too many feminists either staying silent or joining in (Joan Walsh, Katha Pollitt and others have joined in). How this is supposed to help survivors is beyond me and a lot of people should be ashamed. Nick Givas (FOX NEWS) notes, "Former Colorado governor and current Senate candidate John Hickenlooper said Wednesday that he believes allegations made by Tara Reade against 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden are true but will still be voting for him anyway."

A lot of people are covering for 'innocent' Joe Biden. They appear unaware of what he's done to the world and unaware that politicians serve us, not the other way around.

We'll note that video again tomorrow.

We started with Mike Pompeo, we'll close with him. His remarks about Iraq (quoted at the start) were made at the press briefing he gave for the release of the 2019 International Religious Freedom Report.

SECRETARY POMPEO: Good morning, everyone. It’s great to be with you all today. I’m here one more time, proudly, to talk about freedom and free societies. And while America is not a perfect nation by any means, we always strive towards that more perfect union, trying to improve. We remain the greatest nation in the history of civilization.
One of the good things that we do in this administration is our dedication to the protection of religious freedom all around the world. Last week, President Trump signed the first ever executive order that instructs the entire U.S. Government to prioritize religious freedom.
Here at the State Department, I’ve hosted the Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom now twice. We’ve launched the International Religious Freedom Alliance. We’ve trained our Foreign Service officers to understand religious freedom issues much more deeply.
And today, I’m proud to release the 2019 International Religious Freedom Report. There is no other nation that cares so deeply about religious freedom, that we gather accounts from all across the world – it’s an enormous, it’s a comprehensive accounting of this fundamental human right.
Let me highlight a few positive developments we’ve observed in this past year:
The Gambia, an International Freedom Alliance member, has courageously brought a case before the International Court of Justice regarding crimes against the Rohingya.
The United Arab Emirates, long an ally for religious freedom in the Middle East, has become the first country in the Middle East to permit the construction of a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In Uzbekistan, steps have been taken to improve its record on religious freedom, and those steps continue. I had a great chat with religious leaders where I was there earlier this year.
We documented no police raids of unregistered religious group meetings during 2019, compared with 114 such raids in 2018, and 240 – 240 the year before that. These are great strides, real progress, the efforts of our State Department team showing or bearing fruit.
But there’s also a great darkness over parts of the world where people of faith are persecuted or denied the right to worship:
The Nicaraguan Government harasses and intimidates religious leaders and worshipers and desecrates religious spaces, often using proxies.
In Nigeria, ISIS and Boko Haram continue to attack Muslims and Christians alike. ISIS beheaded 10 Christians in that country just this past December.
And in China, state-sponsored repression against all religions continues to intensify. The Chinese Communist Party is now ordering religious organizations to obey CCP leadership and infuse communist dogma into their teachings and practice of their faith. The mass detentions of Uighurs in Xinjiang continues. So does the repression of Tibetans and Buddhists and Falun Gong and Christians.
I commend the report released today to everyone. Its very existence is evidence of our strong resolve to defend human dignity.

The following sites updated:

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

SOPHISTICATED LADIES

NBC scored big with their live production of THE SOUND OF MUSIC and THE WIZ, FOX with GREASE. Other notables? THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, RENT, JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, THE LITTLE MERMAID LIVE!, A CHRISTMAS STORY and the hideous PETER PAN LIVE! Most of the efforts were based on stage productions (THE ROCKY HORROR SHOW started as a film, the GREASE production owed more to the film than the original Broadway production).

HAIR and BYE-BYE BIRDIE were planned but then cancelled.

In this group post, we are all picking a play or movie that we think would make a good live TV production. From 1960 to 2002, it ran off Broadway.

I never saw SOPHISTICATED LADIES, but my brother had the poster on his wall and I grew up imaging what it must have been like. It ran on Broadway for about two years and featured the music of Duke Ellington with Gregory Hines in the leading role (Tony nominated) as well as Phyllis Hyman (Tony nominated as well) and Hinton Battle (who won a Tony).

Here's the late Phyllis Hyman performing "It Don't Mean A Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing" from

At a time when the lack of representation on Broadway is being noted, SOPHISTICATED LADIES would be a good antidote to the predominately White live TV productions of the last years.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Wednesday, June 10, 2020. More on the US plane that crashed in Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr returns to an old cry, the US and Iraqi representatives begin meetings today to outline future steps, and much more.

THE WYOMING TRIBUNE EAGLE notes, "A Wyoming Air National Guard member and three others were injured after a cargo plane crashed in Iraq." Yesterday's snapshot noted the US cargo plane crash in Iraq that left at least four on board injured:

A US military transport plan has crashed in Baghdad leaving at least four service members injured. The US military says the plane "overshot the runway" while the Iraqi Revolutionary Group states it shot the plane down.

Of the four injured, Stephen Losey (AIR FORCE TIMES) notes, "The service members’ injuries were not life-threatening, and they are being treated at the base’s medical facility, according to a release by Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve." THE DRIVE adds, "The C-130H, which is assigned to the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing at Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, crashed at Taji, which is situated approximately 17 miles north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, at around 10:10 PM local time."

Of the wounded from Wyoming, AP notes:

The Wyoming Guard member’s condition wasn’t available but wasn’t life-threatening, Wyoming Military Department spokesman Rusty Ridley said Tuesday.

Three of the four hurt were released after treatment, Ridley added.

Though crewed by the Wyoming Air National Guard, the plane wasn’t among the Guard’s C-130s. U.S. military officials said they didn’t suspect hostile activity but were investigating.

In other news, Lawk Ghafuri (RUDAW) reports:

Spanish troops are planning to withdraw from a strategic Iraqi military base in southeast of Baghdad at the end of this summer, according to the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS) group.

In an official statement sent to Rudaw on early Wednesday, the US-led coalition announced the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Besmaya Range Complex, a military base in southeastern Baghdad province that is under the control of the US-led coalition.

“In the late summer, Spanish troops will be withdrawn from the Besmaya Range Complex, Iraq. The base is one of the Building Partner Capacity centers run by the US-led international anti-ISIS Coalition,” the statement reads.

Iraqis have called for the US to leave their country. One who has long made that call is Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. THE NEW ARAB notes he has renewed his call:

Prominent Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on the US to remove its "occupying forces" from the country, just hours after four American soldiers were injured in an attack on a military base in Baghdad.

The Shia Muslim cleric demanded Washington "withdraw its occupying forces from all countries, especially Iraq, in a manner the preserves peoples’ prestige and dignity".

"I think it's necessary for America to change its hostile and arrogant approach with its people first and the people of the world, second," Sadr said in a statement, addressing recent anti-racism protests in the US.

Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) insists, "But more importantly, Sadr is a major political player in Iraq, and the Iraqi parliament wants the US out of the country. Pushing this position is an obvious position to take, and one that makes clear that a violent US reaction would be unwelcome."

No.

Moqtada is not "a major political player." He was. In 2012, he was rebuilding his brand. By 2016, he was a very important player. But he lost that power by a series of idiotic and stupid moves. Originally, he supported the protests in the fall of 2019. Then he withdrew his support in January, then he returned it maybe, then he withdrew it again, then he insisted that men and women should not protest together and then . . .

Iraq has a young population. They are laughing at him. They mocked him in the protests after his call for men and women to protest separately. He has not been able to come back from that moment so far. He might at some point, but right now he remains a joke. He had supporters, now he has a small cult.

No one listened to him before on his call for the US to withdraw. I doubt he expects the US to listen now. But he does see it as a cry that got him attention and support so that might be why he's making it now.

Yesterday's snapshot included this:

Mustafa Habib notes another political twist:

Wild move, Iraqi PM Al-Kadhimi appoints judge Raed Jouhi as the director of the his office, Jouhi became known as he issued judicial warrant to arrest Muqtada Sadr in 2003 for the murder of Majid al-Khoei, & he the first judge who investigate with Saddam Hussein after his arrest

Moqtada has regularly and repeatedly fled to Iran since the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. During the years Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, the fleeing was so he could avoid arrest. Now the person responsible for issuing that arrest warrant is part of the prime minister's office? That's got to worry Moqtada.

And the terrorism of gay men and men suspected of being gay is something he got away with in Nouri al-Maliki's second term but it's not something the young people of Iraq are embracing. Human Rights Watch's Belkis Willie notes:

An important report from

@Rasan_Org

documenting the most recent wave of attacks against LGBT people in #Iraq, particularly by Moqtada al-Sadr, that according to the org has led to the killings of six young LGBT+ members since May 17

Meanwhile, Hammin Latif (ARAB WEEKLY) reports:

In Baghdad, there has been a non-stop barrage of criticism of the US-Iraqi talks beginning today.
The criticism and smear tactics have gone on despite the fact that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi went out on a limb to clarify matters for the political parties and the public in general.
According to unofficial information, the US-Iraq Strategic Dialogue starts Wednesday and will continue Thursday.
The final phases of the preparations for the dialogue were completed with US Ambassador Matthew Toler paying a visit to the new Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein on Monday, according to informed sources.
Iran’s allies in Iraq are trying to hammer home the idea that the Baghdad-Washington talks are focusing on the status of American forces in the country, while Kadhimi’s team has suggested that economic development will be the top priority.

FOREIGN BRIEF offers, "A major component of the talks today will consider US efforts aimed at diminishing Iran’s influence in Iraq as part of Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign. For Iraqi policymakers, the focus is expected to be the question of whether to request the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq or to seek to keep those troops in country until the Islamic State has been completely defeated and ousted from the country; Iraqis are sharply divided on the issue."

May 7th, Mustafa Al-Kadhimi became the latest prime minister of Iraq. His is supposed to be a brief term, his main goal being to set up elections. REUTERS' John Davison Tweets:

Iraq’s newish PM Mustafa Kadhimi is taking press on his first tour since he formed his full govt - to Mosul and its surroundings. Mins of reconstruction, culture and others are also here. #iraq 1/

It’s a whistle-stop tour. Been to Q West air base (recently exited by US troops), Nineveh ops command, Nuri mosque (where ISIS leader Baghdadi declared a caliphate), multi-ethnic and religious Bartella, and shortly an IDP camp and a church 2/

The new PM’s message so far: Mosul and Nineveh like the rest of Iraq need to be restored; Iraq’s strength will be its plurality; Iraq is in this state because of both Saddam and the leadership and governing post-2003. ‘Mismanagement’ is a word he keeps repeating 3/

There’s a lot of hope being placed on Kadhimi’s government by senior officials and Western capitals. He’s being projected by his own office as a strong, non-sectarian leader who can row back foreign influence including Iran and its miltias, especially with US help 4/

But Kadhimi was brought in by the same parties which many Iraqis allege have ruined the country and which have clung onto real power despite mas protests. He does not have his own party. Some see him as just as hamstrung as his predecessor Abdul Mahdi. 5/

So no matter how strong Kadhimi is, it will require a heck of a lot more to change Iraq’s current course. Corruption is so entrenched, and foreign powers continue to compete over influence here. And the parties and militias are still here fighting over reducing resources. 6/

A visit to Mosul is a strong statement 6 years after ISIS took it. But his meetings with sheikhs and leaders and officials reveal a litany of complaints and demands that any government would find it hard to address. 7/

Reuters will soon be publishing a report about why it’s so difficult to get a city like Mosul off the ground, how we got here, and what that means for Iraq. Stay tuned. END

Mustafa Al-Kadhimi has promised change. He's made a lot of statements about the protesters right to protest, about releasing them from prisons, about investigating the assaults carried out against them . . . Lots of pretty words. But what's changed?

Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) reports, "A young protester was tortured and killed in Tahrir Square."

What's changed now that Mustafa is prime minister? Apparently, not one damn thing.

ALJAZEERA reports on how corruption is effecting farming in Iraq.