We have been bombarded in the last couple of weeks on the nominee for the Supreme Court….and more recently about the accusation of sexual misconduct….and now there is even more news on this subject…..
A former classmate of Christine Blasey Ford has changed her tune a bit after initially stating, “This incident did happen” in a Facebook post about Ford’s allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. You can see a screenshot of Cristina King Miranda’s Wednesday post, which has since been deleted, here; in it, Miranda says she knew Ford, Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge (who Ford says was in the room during the alleged assault) in high school and describes a “completely out of control” drinking environment. She says she was one of the more than 200 alumnae of Maryland’s Holton-Arms School who signed an open letter supporting Ford, and that “many of us heard about [the Ford-Kavanaugh incident] in school.” But in a new interview with NPR, Miranda denies knowing whether the assault happened.
“That it happened or not, I have no idea. I can’t say that it did or didn’t,” Miranda says. “In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen]. I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter.” She says she played soccer with Ford and that she still supports her and believes her, but she wasn’t expecting to be contacted by staff from the Senate Judiciary Committee after posting on Facebook. She says that if the committee asks to interview her, she will decline. She also posted on Twitter (though her account appears to have since been deleted) that she does “not have first hand knowledge of the incident” Ford describes. But, she tells NPR, she remembers a “buzz” going around involving a serious incident at a party involving students from her school and Kavanaugh’s school.
When I read this story the first thing that entered my mind was…..wonder how much that cost the team?”
As I always try to say….he is accused of misconduct….this needs to play out and cut the theatrics (which is impossible in DC for theatrics is all they have)…
The GOP seems to be in a rush to confirm for the good of the court…..seriously….they allowed the court to function with a judge down for damn near a year and it is important now but not 2 years ago…..this is what I point to when I call them all hypocrites…….
Personally, I do not trust the guy…his hair looks like that of a Baptist preacher and I do not trust a preacher as far as I can toss them.
The deadly attacks of 9/11 marked the beginning of a new war declared by DC….the War On Terror.
We Americans declared war on many things….on drugs, on poverty, and now on terror…..and of the wars we have declared after 1945 have NOT brought about a victory.
The War on Poverty was a heady idea and was a flop at best….the war on drugs has been nothing short of a massive failure that we still fund with the hopes that something good will happen.
And now we have another “War” to fund…the War on Terror.
After 17 years can we declare victory…or at least a success?
It has been a great success…..a success at creating far more terrorists than it eliminates.
In the 17 years since the events of Sept. 11 2001, after which the United States declared a “global war on terror,” there has not been a terrorist attack of similar size or magnitude on American soil.
However, according to findings in a new congressionally mandated report by the United States Institute of Peace—authored by members of a federal task force focused on extremism—nations around the world have suffered a five-fold increase in terrorist attacks following the post-9/11 policies unleashed by the U.S. and its allies.
The focus of the report—titled Beyond the Homeland: Protecting America from Extremism in Fragile States—maintains a very U.S.-centric worldview. And while it does little or nothing to critically challenge the widely criticized policies pursued by the Bush, Obama, or Trump presidencies, its tabulation of the dramatic rise in destablized states and growing terrorist violence throughout the regions where the U.S. military has been most active since 2001—namely, the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa—is nonetheless revealing.
I mean look at Al-Qaeda….they were the bastards that attacked the US in 2001……destroyed and killed much……and yet this same organization, AQ, is being protected in Syria by the US military……
In a rare and unprecedented speech delivered on the House floor just two days after the nation memorialized 9/11, Democratic Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard on Thursday slammed Washington’s longtime support to anti-Assad jihadists in Syria, while also sounding the alarm over the current build-up of tensions between the US and Russia over the Syria crisis.
She called on Congress to condemn what she called the Trump Administration’s protection of al-Qaeda in Idlib and slammed Washington’s policies in Syria as “a betrayal of the American people”— especially the victims and families that perished on 9/11.
The War on Terror is doing the same thing as our War on Drugs…….siphoning off much needed funds for social programs and giving it to the M-IC that has NO intention to ending these wars.
Since the original attacks the US has spent $2.8 trillion on fighting terrorism……that is $2.8 trillion with a “T”…..the War on Drugs has cost this country about $1 trillion over 40 years.
But I must answer the question asked in the title…….NO! Our track record would indicate that we have NO intention on winning this war…..these wars.
Remember during the 2016 election and the chants of “Build the wall” coming from the mindless drones of the Trump camp? And of course that Mexico would pay for it (this has nothing to do with the post but if does help the word count)…
This is Trump’s, Our Dear Leader, answer to stopping the flow of immigrants into the US. Does everyone remember this?
It seems he is a “One Trick Pony” on the control of immigrants….he gave a Spanish minister some advice…..
Spain’s foreign minister says President Trump offered the Spanish government some very Trumpian advice on dealing with an influx of cross-Mediterranean migrants. Josep Borrell says the president suggested building a wall across the Sahara desert, even though only two small enclaves in the region are Spanish territory, the Telegraph. Borrell, who accompanied Spanish royals to the White House in June, told an event in Madrid this week that when skeptical Spanish diplomats pointed out that such a wall would have to be more than 3,000 miles long, Trump said, incorrectly: “The Sahara border can’t be bigger than our border with Mexico.” A ministry spokesman tells the Guardian: “We can confirm that’s what the minister said, but we won’t be making any further comment on the minister’s remarks.”
Since most of the immigrants originate south of the desert and make their way north to try and find passage to Europe.
The map below shows the extent of the Sahara and to build a wall across the Southern limits of the desert is just a pipe dream…..nay it is a fucking joke from a comedian that has NO idea about the geography of the region.
Like is said a “One Trick Pony”.
Another wind bag GOPer that has NO idea of geography and thinks slogans will solve a problem.
The 2018 mid-terms is just days away…..and as with every election for decades the talking points will be about which party and/or candidate has put together the most donors and cash.
Everybody knows the old talking points about campaign cash…..he who spends the most wins….Dark money……yada yada…..
But there is a bit more to the effects of cash on elections than the 30 second sound bite network TV gives the listeners….
The Nerds at geeky website, fivethirtyeight.com, has put together a good piece to explain the effects of cash on elections.
To quote the great political philosopher Cyndi Lauper, “Money changes everything.” 1 And nowhere is that proverb more taken to heart than in a federal election, where billions of dollars are raised and spent on the understanding that money is a crucial determinant of whether or not a candidate will win.
This year, the money has been coming in and out of political campaigns at a particularly furious pace. Collectively, U.S. House candidates raised more money by Aug. 27 than House candidates raised during the entire 2014 midterm election cycle, and Senate candidates weren’t far behind. Ad volumes are up 86 percent compared to that previous midterm. Dark money — flowing to political action committees from undisclosed donors — is up 26 percent.
SCOTUS has made corporations equal to individuals and in doing so made the dark money a driving force in elections…..it has replaced real issues with the direction of donors.
Just 15 groups were responsible for more than 75 percent of dark money political spending from 2010 to 2016, and together poured more than $600 million—out of a total of $800+ million—into campaigns in the wake of the landmark Citizens United case, according to a new analysis from Issue One, a nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for stricter campaign finance rules.
Dems are just as bad as the GOP…..they talk a mean game but do little to change anything…..
For voters concerned about the bad consequences of big business spending on elections, a New York Times reportlast month promised mid-summer relief. “Tired of Money in Politics, Some Democrats Think Small,” the headline read.
The accompanying article, which focused on a Minnesota Congressional contest, noted that, “in mid-term races around the country…dozens of Democrats [are] rejecting donations from political action committees, or PACs, that are sponsored by corporations or industry groups.”
Dems are always bitching about the money in politics and all the while are standing with their hands out. There is only one way to remove big money from politics……by law and by making elections a federal funded operation…..no private money.
We know just how much Our Dear Leader truly appreciates things that make him look good. He likes to be complimented…….and he likes real estate deals….Like North Korea would be a good spot for condos….and now the East European country of Poland has massaged the ego of Our Dear Leader…..
Poland’s leader pressed President Donald Trump on Tuesday to consider creating a permanent American military base in Poland, offering a tempting incentive: The installation would be called “Fort Trump.” Polish President Andrzej Duda extended the invitation during a one-on-one meeting with Trump at the White House that focused heavily on the US presence in Poland as the country faces Russia’s increased military activities in the region, the AP reports. Trump said during a joint news conference with Duda that he was considering the idea and noted that Poland had offered more than $2 billion to the US to pay for such an effort. Duda, for his part, came away confident that he had taken a major step toward lining up a permanent American military base in his country.
“I was smiling when talking to Mr. President. I said that I would very much like for us to set up a permanent American base in Poland which we would call Fort Trump,” Duda said through a translator, prompting Trump to raise his eyebrows and smile. “And I firmly believe that this is possible.” Seeking a check on Russian aggression, Poland wants the 3,000 US troops now deployed in Poland on a rotating basis to be upgraded to a larger, permanent presence. A decision from the US could come early next year. Security, trade and energy topped the agenda as Trump welcomed Duda to the White House for the first time. Duda credited Trump for making Warsaw the first stop on the US president’s inaugural European trip last year and said Trump’s outdoor address in Poland was a “very important moment” for the relationship between the two countries. Trump said the two leaders agreed to bolster defense, energy and commercial ties, adding that the alliance between the two countries had “never been stronger.”
In reality, the cost putting a US armored base in Poland on a permanent basis is going to be several hundred million dollars per year, and while Poland’s cash may make the initial move into the country cheaper, it will quickly be another costly mission for the US with no end in sight.
Let’s look at it from another angle…….We know that Trump enjoys his name branding….so how much will he make off a “Fort” bearing his name? His ego must be flying high right now. Trump Tower, Trump steaks, Trump wine, Trump Vodka and now a Fort Trump…..
I have written many times about our endless wars and the drain it is taking on our military and even though I am an anti-war person I would support a draft since we cannot seem to end these damn wars.
I have been working as an anti-war activists since the 1970’s….apparently war is more profitable than I once thought…..anyway I have had many debates on why we need to re-instate the draft….
After reading a report on the state of our citizens I am re-thinking my stance. If the report is accurate then we must depend on a volunteer military and that is not looking to sound either….sorry on to the report….
The military depends on a constant flow of volunteers every year. According to 2017 Pentagon data, 71 percent of young Americans between 17 and 24 are ineligible to serve in the United States military. Put another way: Over 24 million of the 34 million people of that age group cannot join the armed forces—even if they wanted to. This is an alarming situation that threatens the country’s fundamental national security. If only 29 percent of the nation’s young adults are qualified to serve, and if this trend continues, it is inevitable that the U.S. military will suffer from a lack of manpower. A manpower shortage in the United States Armed Forces directly compromises national security.
The Trump boyz have said that there will be surge in Afghanistan….may not be as easy as these guys pretend…..(more from the report)
The Trump administration’s ambitious new military buildup is at risk of being hobbled before it even starts — by a dwindling pool of young Americans who are fit to serve.
Nearly three-quarters of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for the military due to obesity, other health problems, criminal backgrounds or lack of education, according to government data.That’s a harsh reality check for the Pentagon’s plan to recruit tens of thousands of new soldiers, sailors, pilots and cyber specialists over the next five years.
We all have those little things that irritate the Hell out of us…..like things not returned to their original location…..or people who use the word “literally” wrong……..mine is when people in authority have NO idea what they are talking about.
And yes I have such a person in mind….
In a clumsy attempt to attack a non-interventionist congressional colleague, Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger got his war geography mixed up — referring to Syrian President Bashar Assad as “the Butcher of Baghdad”.
In an interview with CNN at the weekend, Kinzinger lashed out at his Democratic House colleague, Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, for her controversial decision to meet with Assad in 2017, but ran into some geography trouble when trying to insult the Syrian president.
This idiot is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs……personally I think anyone on such a committee needs to have a grasp on international reality. As Randy Newman sez….”they’re Rednecks don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground”. (Do not take offense…just listen to the words)
All I can say is “bless his heart”…..which is Southern speak for “you’re an asshole”.
Thumbs up to the GOP for putting an ignorant slob on an important committee…..especially these days when a bit of expertise would be a plus for our foreign policy since nothing positive comes out of the White House.
Sorry I cannot go any further….red face laughter makes it difficult.
Some might think this is a post about the Cold War and the confrontation of the US and Soviet Union……but that would be a mistake….but one that would be logical if history is not known.
One hundred years ago today, 19 September 1918, the American Expeditionary Force in Russia was attacked by the Red Army.
That is correct the US sent troops to Russia to fight in their Civil War against the Red Army…..
Many Americans would be surprised to learn that the USA, along with Britain, France, and Japan, fought a campaign in Russia just after the Great War (World War I). The primary objective of this action was the re-establishment of an Eastern Front following the collapse of the Russian government during the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, but Allied fear of communist ambitions in other countries also played into the intervention as will be seen below. The overall campaign was named the Polar Bear Expedition, but was also known as the Northern Russian Expedition, the American North Russia Expeditionary Force – ANREF or the American Expeditionary Force North Russia – AEFNR.
These efforts are not mentioned in most history survey courses, and few texts even mention that US troops (or those of any other nation) fought against the Bolsheviks during this period. The presence of US Army units from Michigan in Vladivostok, Archangel, and other Russian locations is rarely noted although the University of Michigan maintains an archive of photographs and other primary evidence relating to the period.
This incident could be one of the reasons that Russia is leery of the intentions of the US….after all we sent an invading force to their country…..which is interesting since the US was considered an isolationist country in those days.
But why did we participate in a Russian Civil War? But first let’s look at the war……
In 1918 a variety of different groups opposed the Bolshevik government. This included landowners who had lost their estates, factory owners who had their property nationalized, devout members of the Russian Orthodox Church who objected to the government’s atheism and royalists who wanted to restore the monarchy. The closing down of the Constituent Assembly and the banning of all political parties united Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Cadets. Others were unhappy with the acceptance of the harsh terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty which resulted in Russia being deprived of a third of her population, a third of her factories and three-quarters of her coal and iron producing areas. She also had to pay reparations totalling 3000 million roubles in gold.
I have always heard people say that the US was the “purveyor of peace”….of course it is total bullsh*t for if a nation was truly dedicated to peace it would not go around the planet looking for a fight.
Recently Our Dear Leader held a “summit”(I think the idea that this meeting was a stretch of the use of the term) with North Korea’s Kim and has proclaimed that NK will get rid of all their nukes and the Peninsula will become a haven for peace…..
Moon was very frank about this, saying “what I want to achieve is peace. Not a tentative change which could be volatile dependent on international situation, but irreversible, permanent, and unwavering peace, regardless of what might happen on the global area.”
That’s likely to be difficult, with the Trump Administration having made clear repeatedly in recent months that they aren’t willing to reach a peace deal yet, and are intending to hold that out as something North Korea can only get after years of additional concessions.
North Korea has resisted giving up any more without being certain they’ll get a peace deal, ending the Korean War that began in 1950. Likewise, South Korea’s President Moon has set himself up as wanting such a deal, with or without US endorsement.
This risks a split between the US and South Korea, as the two sides have seen differences shaping up in the past several months on how to approach North Korea diplomacy, and the US has increasingly chosen to negotiate independent of the wishes of its long-time allies in South Korea.
(antiwar.com)
This is where I am on this….any peace should be between the two Koreas….the US should facilitate but any peace agreement should be between the two Asian nations.
The M-IC will not allow a peace deal….after all a war footing makes for good business…..there is no profit in peace.
Turn The Page!
After writing this draft more news from the Korean Peninsula has broken…..
The leaders of the two Koreas have signed what President Trump calls a “very exciting” agreement on the second day of a three-day summit in Pyongyang. South Korean President Moon Jae-in announced in a joint press conference with Kim Jong Un that they had agreed to turn the peninsula into a “land of peace without nuclear weapons,” the Guardian reports. Moon said Kim had agreed to permanently close the Tongchang-ri missile launch facility in the presence of international experts, reports the BBC. The Yongbyon nuclear site could also be closed, depending on “reciprocal action” from the US. The leaders also agreed to file a joint bid to host the 2032 Summer Olympics.
Trump praised the agreement in a tweet. Kim has “agreed to allow Nuclear inspections, subject to final negotiations, and to permanently dismantle a test site and launch pad in the presence of international experts,” he said. “In the meantime there will be no Rocket or Nuclear testing. Hero remains to continue being returned home to the United States.” Analysts described the agreement as a small step in the right direction. “Remember that North Korea is still taking baby steps,” Melissa Hanham at the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies tells Reuters. “We don’t have a timeline, and we also don’t have any guarantees about the larger nuclear and missile programs.”
Looks like the 2 Koreas are making head way……how long before the US craps on this progress?
Storms out on the ocean…..the judge is being judged…….Rudy is filling his poison pen…….Kim is in a pickle…….the Master is Tweeting……all in all that was the week that was….with all that the wars in the Middle East must be nearing a conclusion, right?
Well let’s take a closer look at the events in the Middle East…..
After a months long stretch of merely sporadic violence and simmering tensions, the Middle East seems on the verge of another fiery eruption, and there are no outside powers with the interest or leverage to douse the flames.
The smoke is starting to billow from three well-worn hot spots.
First, there is Idlib province in northern Syria, on the Turkish border, home to 3 million civilians—half of them refugees displaced by war from other parts of the country—and roughly 70,000 anti-regime rebels, many of them jihadis. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has vowed to wipe out all anti-regime forces in air and ground campaigns that will unavoidably kill thousands of civilians, a fact that hasn’t bothered him in previous assaults. His allies, the Russians and Iranians, say they will help, and in fact the bombing has begun.
As the people of Idlib province and the displaced who moved there to escape mayhem elsewhere in Syria tremble in anticipation of the onslaught many expect to bring an end to the seven-year conflict, some among them must certainly wonder, what has the bloodshed accomplished? When it is over, not only will more than half a million people have died but more than six million will have been made refugees and more than twice that will have required some form of humanitarian assistance. And when it is over, an Assad will most likely rule over Syria, as has been true since 1971, leaving the family well-positioned to celebrate the 50th anniversary of their brutal reign over the country in just three years.
An article in the New York Times this week discussed the state of affairs in Afghanistan. It noted that while the US government claims the Taliban control or contest “only” 44 per cent of the districts in Afghanistan, military analysts suggest the figure is actually closer to 61 per cent of the districts.
It is tempting to call most reporting on the wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan “blind and stupid.” This, however, is unfair to journalists – whose job is primarily to report current news and not to speculate about its ultimate meaning or the future. The phrase “blind and stupid” should be applied to most policymakers, strategists, and think tank analysts who try to address these wars – people whose mission is not only to think about the future, but to propose credible solutions to emerging and easily foreseeable problems.
Roads to Hell Without “Good,” or Even Enough “Intentions,” to Describe the Road
In all three cases, each war is generally being approached from one of two inherently ridiculous perspectives. The first perspective is simply to focus on the security side and tactical situation – an approach that ignores all the other causes of instability and unrest, defines “victory” in inherently unworkable terms, or sees minor tactical victories as somehow a reason for continuing the fight with no clear plan to end it.
There is a doc that illustrates the selling of a war……
For decades, Western governments, corporate media and Hollywood have engaged in a project of mass deception to manufacture consent for military interventions. Waged in the name of lofty ideals like freedom, human rights and democracy, US-led wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya wound up bringing death, destruction and even the return of slavery to the African continent. As the wounds from those catastrophes festered, Washington embarked on its most ambitious project yet, marketing another war of regime change, this time in Syria.
Present unrest in the Middle East has many causes and takes on many forms. A collective sense of disenfranchisement, inadequate governance, geopolitical discord, and religious extremism all contribute to the conflicts in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Many Western observers and policymakers view unrest in the Middle East through the lens of binary religious sectarianism, focusing on the divisions between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. This split is most clearly articulated in the geopolitical competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and it plays out through violence in Iraq and Syria. But the complexities of human identity and of regional culture and history do not lend themselves to this arguably too-simplistic interpretation of the situation. The authors analyze sectarianism in the region, evaluate other factors that fan the flames of violent conflict, and suggest a different interpretation of both identity and the nature of regional unrest.
Now for those that cannot read….there is a short vid that could explain a bunch in the shortest amount of time.
There is still more happening in the Middle East and the MSM prefers to ignore the events….it falls on people me me that feels we must report on the events that go unreported if not for us…
