Saturday, October 01, 2016

GHOSTBUSTERS needs more Hemsworth

Chris Hemsworth is the biggest reason GHOSTBUSTERS does not work.

He's that bad?

No, he's wonderful.

The film needs more of him.

Melissa's a wet blanket most of the time and Kristin Wiig wants to play shy but not weird.  It's a comedy, lighten up.

Then there's the woman who does Hillary on SNL.  She's bad and looks like she's got tooth decay at the top of her teeth.  Are those bad caps?
Leslie Jordan is funny.

Chris is funny.

And needs to dancing in his underwear.

We had Signourney half-dressed in the original.

He's basically Annie Potts and Weaver rolled into one.

At one point, the overweight, nerdy White man possess Chris' body and says something about how he should have worked out when he was still alive.

So later, when he still possess Chris, and he starts dancing in front of an audience, it should have been in his briefs.

Instead, he's fully clothed.

They should have done a lot more jokes with Chris who wasn't just a good sport but made his gorgeous but dumb stud a real character.

Maybe Chris can play a similar character in another movie?

I like him as Thor.

But it's like.

I've never loved him until this movie.

He made the receptionist Kevin a real character that you liked and cared about despite his being not very bright.  It's the best dumb blond since Goldie Hawn in CACTUS FLOWER and is its own nod to Marilyn Monroe in SOME LIKE IT HOT.

He should have been on more.

And he should have been shirtless -- though I argue for briefs and let's make them baggy. 

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS): 
Friday, September 30, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, silence from the 'left' continues as Barack Obama's decision to send even more US troops into Iraq sinks in, Iraqi government says Sumerians traveled in outerspace to seek other planets, and much more.

Starting with news from Iraq . . .

Iraq Transport Minister: Sumerians built world's first airports & flew spaceships from southern Iraq to discover other planets (5000yrs ago)

Will the US press ask John Podesta for a comment?

Considering the way they savaged Dennis Kucinich for his beliefs over eight years ago, it really seems they should.

But, strangely, John Podesta is allowed to advise Hillary with no questions asked.

Wait, it's not strange.

US reporters never talk about Iraq.  The candidates avoid it.

Unless they can go back to years and years ago.

No one's asked to present a credible plan because no one ever is asked to address the reality of Iraq today and the press likes to avoid the realities of the ongoing Iraq War.

So it's not being a hypocrite with regards to their trashing of Dennis Kucinnich -- it's just part of their ever going desire to avoid Iraq today.

The big Iraq news for the week remains Wednesday's revelation that US President Barack Obama will be sending even more US troops into Iraq.  Larisa Epatko (PBS NEWSHOUR) notes, "The authorization followed the July announcement of a 560-troop deployment. The deployments bring the total U.S. troop level in Iraq to 5,262."

From the 'left' we have silence and more silence.  The editorial board of THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE weighs in:

There are some strong arguments against increasing U.S. troop involvement in Iraq at this point.  The first is that the Iraqi national army, which U.S. forces are supplying and training, continues to show itself relatively toothless on the battlefield — meaning that U.S. forces will play a prominent role in whatever assault on Mosul occurs.  Washington has yet to explain coherently why Americans should care one way or the other who holds Mosul, or Raqqa, for that matter. The argument that taking Mosul would validate continued U.S. support of the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and the policy of building it a credible national army has a vaguely “dog-chasing-its-tail” quality to it.  If Mr. Abadi’s government had the general support of the Iraqi people, they would put in the field a credible national army on their own account, and his government would not need more American troops to fight its battles.

In other news . . .

French fighter jets take off on mission against Isil in Iraq

So French war planes will do combat with Islamic State war planes!

Oh, wait.

The Islamic State doesn't have war planes.

The US Defense Dept announced yesterday:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft, as well as rocket artillery, conducted 10 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Qaim, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb-making facility.
-- Near Beiji, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a fighting position.
-- Near Haditha, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Kisik, two strikes destroyed an ISIL fighting position and suppressed two ISIL mortar firing positions.
-- Near Mosul, four strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and destroyed a front-end loader, a weapons cache and a vehicle.
-- Near Ramadi, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle and two trench systems.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.

This is so embarrassing.

Mosul's been held since June of 2014 by a terrorist organization.

It's still held by one.

Barack will be increasing the number of US troops in Iraq to 5262 (using PBS' THE NEWSHOUR number -- special-ops not included in that number).

Now France is joining the US in dropping bombs on Iraq.

All to end the siege of Mosul.

The Islamic State must have millions of fighters in Mosul, right?

US military says 3,000 to 4,500 ISIS fighters (Iraqi & foreign) holed up in Mosul ahead of planned offensive

4,500 at most?

All of this and we're talking 4,500 at most?

What did the editorial board of THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE say again?

Oh, that's right: "If Mr. Abadi’s government had the general support of the Iraqi people, they would put in the field a credible national army on their own account, and his government would not need more American troops to fight its battles."

Speaking of editorial boards, THE WASHINGTON POST's editorial board reminds that nothing has been done to address the issues that led to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq:

More important, the Baghdad government has taken no serious steps to resolve long-standing disputes with Sunni and Kurdish leaders over territory, revenue and the delegation of powers to local governments.

Though the absence of such political solutions facilitated the rise of the Islamic State, the Obama administration is not pushing for them. It is not using its considerable leverage — U.S. air support will be vital to liberating Mosul — to insist on better political preparations or the exclusion of Shiite militias. Instead, eager for the operation to begin before President Obama leaves office, it has been encouraging Mr. Abadi to speed up the Mosul offensive, while leaving the Day After problem to the Iraqis. That is a highly risky course. 

It is known that liberating Mosul will create many new refugees.  But nothing has been done to address that.  D. Parvaz (ALJAZEERA) reports:

In a stifling hot office with more flies than oxygen, Rzgar Abed does not hesitate when asked about the biggest challenge in managing the camp for Iraq's internally displaced people (IDPs).
"Space ... we're at 31,000 and that is our capacity. Thirty-one thousand," said Abed, who works for the Barzani Charity Foundation.
It oversees a number of camps, populated by 1.4 million Iraqi displaced people fleeing fighters belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group in the Kurdish region.

That number is set to double within a month, with an additional 1.5 million people expected to flee when the operation to take back Mosul from ISIL starts in mid-October.

Again, no preparations.

And this despite what has been done to other Iraqi cities in the name of 'liberation.'

ghost City
    (Sunni city ) was completely destroyed by Iraqi army &Shia militias   

Despite, all the turmoil and the announcement that more US troops are headed to the country, Iraq's been mentioned only once this week in the State Dept press briefing.  On Wednesday, it briefly surfaced when spokesperson John Kirby was moderating:

QUESTION: On Iraq and Baghdad, Iraq’s parliamentary – Iraq’s national assembly last week, it removed the finance minister [ Hoshyar Zebari]. And the chief of staff of the presidency of the KRG was in New York last week, and he said that the United States was concerned. He told this to the Voice of America. The United States was concerned about this move. Could you elaborate on what he meant on this issue of U.S. concern about the removal of the Iraqi finance minister and what you think generally about what the Iraqi national assembly is doing?

MR KIRBY: What I would just say, first of all, is I’d refer you to the Iraqi Government for specifics on this recent vote to remove the finance minister. Politics aside, reforms are critical to reinforcing Iraq’s progress and to putting the country on a more sustainable fiscal path. We also will continue to support Iraq in its own critical economic reform efforts. We strongly support the Iraqi people in their fight against [the Islamic State], which is on the defensive in Iraq, and we urge Iraqi leaders to continue their efforts to that end, to defeating [the Islamic State]. That must remain and does remain our central focus, particularly at a very pivotal moment in this campaign as Iraqi forces begin to pressure Mosul, and I think that’s as far as I’m going to go on that.

QUESTION: But you don’t think, like, having so many ministers – finance, defense, interior – so many ministries without ministers is a problem?

MR KIRBY: Look, the decision to remove is an Iraqi decision and they should speak – the Iraqi Government should speak to this decision. What I’ve said in the past is we continue to support Prime Minister Abadi and his reform efforts, both political and economic. Obviously, we know that in order to enact those reforms and implement them, you need a team, you need a cabinet, and we support his efforts to fill those posts and to move his government forward. But the individual decisions about removing, in this case, the finance minister, are for the Iraqi Government to speak to. But clearly, we, more broadly speaking, continue to support Prime Minister Abadi as he tries to move the government forward.

QUESTION: But the parliament seems to be opposed to the prime minister.


QUESTION: I mean, that’s why they’re removing his ministers. One interpretation of what parliament is doing is, in fact, that this is being done at the behest of [Nouri al-] Maliki, former prime minister, and he’s trying to get at the current prime minister.

MR KIRBY: I’m simply not educated enough and nor would it be prudent for me to involve in a debate – involve myself in a debate over parliamentary politics in Iraq. Democracy is hard work, it’s tough, and we understand that, and that’s why we continue to support the Abadi government as it moves forward. But these are votes, these are decisions that Iraqi politicians need to speak to.

John Kirby at last speaks some truth: "I'm simply not educated enough" to speak of Iraq.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

HUFFINGTONPOST can't stop lying about Hillary

I took that awful website apart last time and now they've lied again.

Isaac Saul wants you to know Hillary is the most qualified candidate for president ever!!!!

We'll get to that lie in a moment, first this from the liar:

Throughout her time in public service, Hillary Clinton has negotiated ceasefires in Israel, put the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act into law, authored the Pediatric Research Equity Act (which helped re-label drugs to keep millions of children safe), and she got the EU, Russia, China and other world powers to participate in the crippling sanctions on Iran that forced the country to negotiate its nuclear plan out of existence.

I don't have time to check everything but Hillary got the Lilly Ledbetter thing into law?


Let's look at the Senate vote:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S. 181 )
Vote Number:14Vote Date:January 22, 2009, 06:17 PM
Required For Majority:3/5Vote Result:Bill Passed
Measure Number:S. 181 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 )
Measure Title:A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts:YEAs61
Not Voting1
Vote SummaryBy Senator NameBy Vote PositionBy Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea 
Alexander (R-TN), Nay 
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay 
Baucus (D-MT), Yea 
Bayh (D-IN), Yea 
Begich (D-AK), Yea 
Bennet (D-CO), Yea 
Bennett (R-UT), Nay 
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea 
Bond (R-MO), Nay 
Boxer (D-CA), Yea 
Brown (D-OH), Yea 
Brownback (R-KS), Nay 
Bunning (R-KY), Nay 
Burr (R-NC), Nay 
Burris (D-IL), Yea 
Byrd (D-WV), Yea 
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea 
Cardin (D-MD), Yea 
Carper (D-DE), Yea 
Casey (D-PA), Yea 
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay 
Coburn (R-OK), Nay 
Cochran (R-MS), Nay 
Collins (R-ME), Yea 
Conrad (D-ND), Yea 
Corker (R-TN), Nay 
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay 
Crapo (R-ID), Nay 
DeMint (R-SC), Nay 
Dodd (D-CT), Yea 
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea 
Durbin (D-IL), Yea 
Ensign (R-NV), Nay 
Enzi (R-WY), Nay 
Feingold (D-WI), Yea 
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea 
Graham (R-SC), Nay 
Grassley (R-IA), Nay 
Gregg (R-NH), Nay 
Hagan (D-NC), Yea 
Harkin (D-IA), Yea 
Hatch (R-UT), Nay 
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea 
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay 
Inouye (D-HI), Yea 
Isakson (R-GA), Nay 
Johanns (R-NE), Nay 
Johnson (D-SD), Yea 
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea 
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting 
Kerry (D-MA), Yea 
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea 
Kohl (D-WI), Yea 
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay 
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea 
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea 
Leahy (D-VT), Yea 
Levin (D-MI), Yea 
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea 
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea 
Lugar (R-IN), Nay 
Martinez (R-FL), Nay 
McCain (R-AZ), Nay 
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea 
McConnell (R-KY), Nay 
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea 
Merkley (D-OR), Yea 
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea 
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea 
Murray (D-WA), Yea 
Nelson (D-FL), Yea 
Nelson (D-NE), Yea 
Pryor (D-AR), Yea 
Reed (D-RI), Yea 
Reid (D-NV), Yea 
Risch (R-ID), Nay 
Roberts (R-KS), Nay 
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea 
Sanders (I-VT), Yea 
Schumer (D-NY), Yea 
Sessions (R-AL), Nay 
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea 
Shelby (R-AL), Nay 
Snowe (R-ME), Yea 
Specter (R-PA), Yea 
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea 
Tester (D-MT), Yea 
Thune (R-SD), Nay 
Udall (D-CO), Yea 
Udall (D-NM), Yea 
Vitter (R-LA), Nay 
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay 
Warner (D-VA), Yea 
Webb (D-VA), Yea 
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea 
Wicker (R-MS), Nay 

I don't see Hillary's name.

Do you?


Because she wasn't in the Senate when they passed it.  She'd left a day earlier to become Secretary of State.

These are facts, as Peter would say on FAMILY GUY.

As for her being the most qualified ever?

No, she's not.

When I was for her in 2008, I didn't even make that claim.

Being first lady of Arkansas or the US does not qualify you to be president and I never claimed that it did.

The lies never stop at HUFFINGTON POST.


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS): 
Wednesday, September 28, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama's sending more US troops into Iraq, Haider al-Abadi pens an embarrassing column, Hillary Clinton hopes the press keeps forgetting how she raised the issue of George H.W. Bush's adultery in the 1992 presidential race, and much more.

Stephen Kalin and Yeganech Torbati (REUTERS) report, "The United States will send around 600 new troops to Iraq to assist local forces in the battle to retake Mosul from Islamic State that is expected later this year, U.S. and Iraqi officials said on Wednesday."  Barbara Starr (CNN) also reported on the addition.

That's this afternoon.  This morning, we put up "More US troops headed to Iraq -- PM of Iraq says:"

Quick translation of the above posted to Haider al-Abadi's website this morning (he's the prime minister of Iraq):

As they prepare for the major battle to fully liberate the city of Mosul and eliminate the gangs of [the Islamic State], and in light of the fact that trainers and advisers from the international coalition will speed up the conclusion of the battle, in consultation with US President Barack Obama and at the request of the Iraqi government the number of American trainers and advisers under the umbrella of the international coalition in Iraq will be increased to provide backup for the Iraqi security forces during the Liberation of Mosul -- and this size of advisers and trainers will reduce once Mosul has been liberated.  We emphasize that the role of trainers and advisers is not combat but only for training and consultation and the only ones who will liberate the land is our [Iraqi] troops.  

This means more US troops in Iraq.

Haider's not agreeing to more on site.  He wouldn't need to consult on that.  He's agreeing to more coming into the country.

On June 19, 2014, Barack Obama was quite clear about how many US troops might be going back into Iraq.

President Barack Obama:  We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.  American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.

Despite that assertion two years ago, Kalin and Torbati note that this "new deployment is the third such boost in U.S. troop levels in Iraq since April" while Ben Kesling and Carol E. Lee (DOW JONES NEWSWIRES) add, "The latest increase follows the separate decision earlier this month to add roughly 400 troops, sent primarily to staff a logistics hub near the city of Qayara, south of Mosul."  Focusing on the numbers, Daniel Wasserbly (IHS JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY) explains, "The total authorised US military personnel for Iraq is now around 5,250 troops, but hundreds more are understood to be operating there on a 'rotational' basis through temporary duty assignments."

Financial columnist Liz Peek (who used to be part of Marlo Thomas' WOW while it was active) Tweets:

Almost 5k troops in - no Status of Forces Agreement. Another lie from during debate

Where is the SOFA?

There's a Memo of Understanding -- we covered that.  One of the few who did in fact, we covered it in real time.

From the December 11, 2012 snapshot:



In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the United States of America.  Angry, dysfunctional e-mails from Barack-would-never-do-that-to-me criers indicate that we need to go over the Memo a little bit more.  It was signed on Thursday and announced that day by the Pentagon.   Section two (listed in full in yesterday's snapshot) outlines that the two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises.   The tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger numbers.  Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.


This shouldn't be surprising.  In the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- five years ago -- we covered the transcript of the interview Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did with then-Senator Barack Obama who was running in the Democratic Party's primary for the party's presidential nomination -- the transcript, not the bad article the paper published, the actual transcript.  We used the transcript to write "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'" at Third.  Barack made it clear in the transcript that even after "troop withdrawal" he would "leave behind a residual force."  What did he say this residual force would do?  He said, "I think that we should have some strike capability.  But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."


This is not withdrawal.  This is not what was sold to the American people.  Barack is very lucky that the media just happened to decide to take that rather explosive interview -- just by chance, certainly the New York Times wasn't attempting to shield a candidate to influence an election, right? -- could best be covered with a plate of lumpy, dull mashed potatoes passed off as a report.  In the transcript, Let-Me-Be-Clear Barack declares, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities."


So when the memo announces counterterrorism activies, Barack got what he wanted, what he always wanted, what the media so helpfully and so frequently buried to allow War Hawk Barack to come off like a dove of peace.

Not everyone is kicking back with a smile and popping open a can of beer as more US troops are sent into Iraq.  Ethan Forman (SALEM NEWS) reports on the reaction from US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Seth Moulton:

When asked about the role the U.S. troop advisers might play, Moulton said he has no doubt these troops could wind up seeing combat.
"This is clearly a combat mission," said Moulton, who noted that when he was in Iraq in 2004, his platoon had the role of being combat advisers to Iraqi troops in Najaf in central Iraq. But, when they went to the assistance of the Iraqis, the U.S. troops saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Iraq war.
"We do need to defeat ISIS," he said, but the key is "how will this time be different."

Sadly, Seth Moulton is a rare Democrat with a spine.

The biggest disappointment in Congress in the last eight years would be US House Rep Barbara Lee who called for an end to the Iraq War when Bully Boy Bush was in the Oval Office but today can only manage . . .

500 more US troops headed to –but Congress still won’t debate or vote on this war against

Yes, Babsie, that's the problem -- that Congress won't debate it.

Not that the war continues, just that Congress won't debate it.

I don't know if the fake ass gets it or not but America watched her for the last seven years claim that if US troops were still in Afghanistan next year -- always next year -- she'd be doing something in Congress.

She never did a damn thing.

Shane Ryan (PASTE) deserves noting for having the courage Babsie Lee lacks:

So, there are a few questions we could ask, such as:
1. Even if we retake Mosul, is this really going to measurably fix the situation in Iraq in the long term?
2. What happens when we leave?
3. When the Iraqi forces prove incapable of maintaining whatever we accomplish, does that mean we can’t leave?

But then again, why even bother asking these questions? It’s clear that Obama, and the entire American political leadership, is just fine with repeating the mistakes of the past, over and over and over, with no concern for the fact that it just doesn’t work. If the sign of insanity is repeating the same stupid action ad nauseam while expecting different results, then what would you call this?

Meanwhile Haider al-Abadi has a column at USA TODAY that's an embarrassment and includes this:

As we fight, we are aware that military means alone are not enough to end ISIL. As the prime minister and commander in chief of our forces, I spend as much time on the military aspect of the war as I do in addressing the causes that led us to today.
Here I must admit that as Iraqis, we need to do more to fight sectarianism and corruption, two evils that are no less dangerous to our society than terrorism and ISIL. We will not waver in the war against them because of the war against ISIL.
[. . .]
We realize that sectarianism created the gaps that ISIL and its predecessors managed to temporarily fill. Their continued presence in our country hinders the process of reconciliation. Expelling ISIL is a prerequisite for peace, but help from the international community is still needed for us to reach that day.

When, Haider, when are you going to do something to stop the persecution of the Sunnis?

You were installed as prime minister in the fall of 2014.

It's two years later.

The persecution continues.

You're no better than Nouri al-Maliki and his policies of persecution gave the Islamic State the footing they needed.

Staying with lying politicians, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

At THE WASHINGTON POST, Shawn Boburg attempts to explore "Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton's Responded to Husband's accusers" and does a fairly good job.

I'm going to object to the use of the term "sexual assault."

It's assault.  We say "assault."  "Sexual assault" implies it's about sex.

In Boburg's example of Juanita Broaddrick, the woman has consistently accused Bill Clinton of rape.

Stop calling assault "sexual assault."  I don't use the term "sex crime" either.

These are assaults and rapes and attempted rapes.

Aside from that?

Boburg misses one of the biggest events.  Yes, the article reviews how Hillary collaborated in smearing women who accused Bill Clinton of assault and of rape and of harassment and even notes Monica Lewinsky on the topic (Hillary smeared her on THE TODAY SHOW).

But Hillary and her whiners love to claim that it's off sides, impolite for anyone to bring up these affairs.

It's just wrong -- boo, hoo.

What a load of s**t.

First off, we know Bill couldn't keep it in his pants the last time he was living in the White House and a lot of us know he's been cheating on Hillary since leaving the White House (and who the main woman is) so there's a good chance if Hillary's back in the White House with Bill that Bill's going to get caught in another affair.

That's going to drag the nation through the gutter yet again.

She's running for president, it's an issue.

Her little snit fit during the Monica days demonstrate that maybe such a development would leave her unable to function as president.

So it's an issue.

If she wants to claim to be a defender of women, her attacks on those who have accused her husband in the past is an issue.

There's that and so much more.

Her whiners insist it is unfair to hold Hillary accountable for the behavior of her husband.

She chose to stay with him.

I don't mean after Monica, I mean after Gennifer.

And she slimed Gennifer while lying that her husband hadn't had an affair with Gennifer Flowers.

She chose to stay with him, that's an endorsement of his continued actions.

And despite his long pattern of cheating, when Monica was exposed, she attacked Lewinsky.

So she needs to be held accountable.

But there's another part, it's the part of the story that Ava and I covered back in July:

Bill slept with Gennifer Flowers -- as he admitted under oath near the end of the 90s.

But in 1992, when Ms. Flowers was telling her tale, what did Hillary do?

Bob Somerby won't tell you.

He's too busy lying about Pauline Kale with 'facts' like she wrote for THE NEW YORK TIMES, "The mentality behind such works produced a famous moment in December 1972, when Times film critic Pauline Kael expressed surprise that Nixon had won the White House again."

It was THE NEW YORKER, you cultural idiot, she wrote for THE NEW YORKER, not THE NEW YORK TIMES.

And it wasn't poor Hillary in 1992.

Not in the pages of VANITY FAIR.

"Double standard."

Bob knows the term, he never quotes Hillary on it, nor does anyone else.

Her husband slept with Jennifer Flowers and she knew about it.

But the 'victim' Hillary chose to use Gail Sheehy's interview with her for VANITY FAIR to insist that it was a "double standard" because people knew about "Bush and his carrying on, all of which is apparently well known in Washington."

That's our 'feminist' Hillary.

Her cheating husband is getting questioned?

She tosses Barbara Bush under the bus.

Hillary's never been a victim.

She's always been involved.

She's always figured out how to go after Bill's various mistresses, she's always figured out how to present herself as innocent and wronged.

Ty saw THE WASHINGTON POST article and called me ticked off because that article doesn't note  the VANITY FAIR article.  I don't read e-mails to THIRD about what Ava and I write there.  Ty passed on over the phone that negative e-mails on the above insisted that never happened and we'd made the whole thing up.

Too lazy to go to a real library and look up the article in VANITY FAIR all those years ago, they just decided it was a lie.

Here's something that should be easier for you to check, page 134 of Joan Didion's POLITICAL FICTIONS -- click here and you can order it instantly on KINDLE for $11.99 or pick up a used copy for one cent (plus postage) via snail mail.  Here's what you'll find on that page:

Apparent accidents, and even some apparent mistakes in judgment, had emerged over time as less accidental than strategic.  There was Hillary Clinton's "gaffe" in complaining to Gail Sheehy, interviewing her for Vanity Fair, that the press was following a "double standard" in dwelling on her husband's alleged friendship with Gennifer Flowers, since Anne Cox Chambers ("sittin' there in her sunroom") had told her about "Bush and his carrying on, all of which is apparently well known in Washington."  This was an "embarrassment," a "mistake," and yet the appearance of the Vanity Fair piece coincided with Clinton strategists issuing the same preemptive warning to the Bush campaign; with Ron Brown suggesting that if the questions about adultery were to persist, he thought similar questions should be put to Bush; and with Democratic consultant Robert Squier suggesting on the NBC Today show that Bush be asked what he called "the Jennifer question."  Nor was just the single point scored: there was also considerable secondary gain in showing Mrs. Clinton as "feminine," a weaker vessel, gossiping with a friend over tea in the sunroom and then retailing the gossip to a new friend -- who, in the "unfrminine" role of reporter, the wife's moment of indiscretion in her husband's defense.  The erring but contrite wife could then be firmly but gently "reprimanded" by the presumptive CINC, her husband ("The main point is, she apologized . . . she made a mistake and she's acknowledge it"), an improved role for both of them.

To the press, in a presidential election, Hillary raised the issue of George H.W. Bush cheating on Barbara Bush with his own Jennifer Fitzgerald.  (Donna Brazile did the same during the Michael Dukakis campaign and was forced to leave the campaign as a result.)

It was not by accident, it was not by chance.

And not only did she herself raise the issue of adultery in a presidential campaign, she did it while playing stereotypical archetypes to manipulate the press.

Which is the other issues -- she's played with gender roles before, she's worked them when she's wanted to.

She's no innocent in this.

That's the point Joan Didion's making in the paragraph above.

And if you're too cheap to buy a good book -- or maybe you're a victim of the 'rebounding' recovery as so many are -- you can find Joan's essay online for free here at THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS -- scroll a little over a third way down the page for the paragraphs.  (Paragraphs?  In the book it's one paragraph, in the online essay, the paragraph is split into two paragraphs.)

Jill Stein is the Green Party presidential candidate.

Not only did she vote for in but she also herself initiated regime changes and invasions

And violence continues in Iraq . . . .

High ranking |i army officers among 33 others killed and 6 others wounded in a snap attack north Baghdad; according to Aamaq..

And the US Defense Dept announced today:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 10 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Qaim, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb-making facility.

-- Near Kisik, a strike produced inconclusive results.

-- Near Mosul, four strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit, suppressed a mortar system and destroyed an anti-air artillery system and a tunnel.

-- Near Qayyarah, two strikes destroyed two ISIL vehicles and a mortar system.

-- Near Ramadi, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike destroyed an ISIL mortar system and damaged an excavator.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.