Hopefully, this is good news. From Deadline:
Kristen Stewart is set to play iconic actress Jean Seberg in
Against All Enemies, a hot and timely package that’s come together with an all-star cast. A political
thriller directed by
Benedict Andrews (Una), the story is inspired by true events about the
Breathless pixie who in the late 1960s was targeted by the illegal FBI surveillance program COINTELPRO. Fred Berger (La La Land) and
Brian Kavanaugh-Jones of
Automatik are producing alongside Kate Garwood and Stephen Hopkins,
as well as Andrew Levitas of Metalwork Pictures. Memento Films
International is handling offshore sales. UTA and Endeavor Content are
repping North America.
Why do I say “hopefully”?
This goes beyond the FBI. The CIA was part of it and part of the worst part.
If you had said that in 2003 online, you would have been mocked and ridiculed.
It took C.I. to set the story on Seberg right.
Joyce Haber somehow became the person responsible for outing Jean being pregnant with the child of a Black Panther.
No.
Joyce Harber ran a blind item – one
her editor brought to her. They need to check out that editor’s
connections and stop blaming the gossip columnist. Joyce ran a blind
item that readers may have thought was, for example, Jane Fonda.
This blew over with no big deal.
Months later, Jean had a miscarriage.
This happened after NEWSWEEK – not
Joyce Harber – ran a non-blind item declaring that Jean was pregnant and
the father was a Black Panther. They claimed to have spoken to Jean.
They wrote complete lies and, yes, by the standards of the
day, they were fully aware they were opening themselves to libel laws.
If a husband is standing up and saying he is the father, that’s the end
of the story for the press.
Grasp that.
Now this is not the FBI.
The FBI went after Jean.
But the FBI is domestic.
This hit job by the CIA-connected NEWSWEEK? It took place in France.
This was the CIA, not the FBI. Jean
was being attacked for speaking out against the war and against racism.
The government saw her as a radical. They went after her in the US
with the FBI. Internationally, they used the CIA.
When NEWSWEEK printed that story –
which, again, was not true – Jean immediately had problems with her
pregnancy and was taken to the hospital. The child was still born.
Jean’s husband immediately sued NEWSWEEK (and won).
He didn’t sue Joyce Harber. He didn’t
mention her nor did Jean. Joyce was a gossip columnist who ran a blind
item about miss unnamed actress who is pregnant and blah blah.
NEWSWEEK lied that they had interviewed Jean and that Jean told
them that she was carrying the child of a Black Panther.
Somehow this story had gotten so
twisted in the decades since – C.I. has argued (and I agree) that this
was an intentional twisting to avoid implicating the CIA – that in the
mid 00’s you would find one site after another insisting that
Joyce Harber published her column and then Jean lost her baby. And
that’s not what happened.
But it was certainly cute to take a
government operation against an American citizen – a planned effort to
destroy someone – and pin it on a gossip columnist.
So it will be interesting to see what happens.
Here’s C.I. writing about this in and
I’m using solid lines to mark the start and end of the excerpt so I
don’t have to bold it all:
I
don't read columns in newspapers for the most part. Returning a
friend's call while enroute to the airport resulted in me being asked
why I hadn't called out the
Los Angeles Times column by Allan M. Jalon that ran Friday? I didn't see it. I would still have avoided it were it not for the fact that
Steve Rendall of so-called FAIR was pimping lies futher.
Here's reality. Bill Thomas was handed that 'tip'. It was given to him by the FBI though he lied for publication. [Jim note: A friend of C.I.'s called and said, "Pull the parenthetical." C.I. dictated this and the friend read it and noted it had something in it that didn't need to be in it and also wrongly assumed someone was dead who is very much alive. So I've logged in and removed the parenthetical.] Allan M. Jalon wants to say Bill said it came from a reporter. Bill may have said that in this decade. As someone who set up an interview for a reporter with Bill back in the seventies and sat in on it, I know Bill's claim then was that he didn't remember where it came from. I also know Bill was continuing to make that claim in the 80s. (When I learned of it in the eighties, I confronted him and asked him if he was ever going to get honest? Apparently not.)
I'm not interested in lies, I'm not interested in garbage. Jean Seberg was destroyed. And she was destroyed by the US government.
What FAIR's Steve Rendall and LAT's Allan M. Jalon are offering are LIES. Bold faced BLOOD LIES and I'll be damned if I'll stand for it.
The Los Angeles Times' part of the story is actually rather minor. It's important more as a footnote in terms of the pain caused to Jean (and Romain). Bill passed on the FBI tidbit to Joyce Haber and said it came from a source -- not a reporter.
And please note, the hard copy of that still exists. Allan appears not to know that -- or appears willing to lie for the paper's former publisher -- ask Allan why his 'factual' column is so damn fact-free? Bill vouched for the source to Joyce on paper. Said the man was reliable. That is in Bill's handwriting. The tidbit was that Jean Seberg was pregnant by a Black Panther. Seberg, an American actress who'd made a home in Paris, was married to Romain Gary (noted French intellectual and author). The Black Panthers were thought to make Middle America 'nervous' at the time and we weren't far past the time -- in this country -- where Petula Clark touching Harry Belfonte's arm while they performed a duet, getting that moment on air was a battle. That was 1968. May 19, 1970 was when Harber's item ran. (In the Los Angeles Times and around the country, her column was syndicated.)
To read Allan's crappy column (or Steve's b.s. at FAIR), you wrongly think all of America said, "Jean Seberg!" They did no such thing. It was a blind item. I can quote it in full if need be. It wasn't very long and it's interesting that neither Allan or Steve wants to quote it. But quoting it would prevent some of the LYING they're doing. It could have been Jean Seberg, but the blind item could have been Jane Fonda (whom most people thought it was) or any number of people. It was a vague item. Steve writes that Allan says J. Edgar Hoover passed it. Does Allan write that? I can only take Allan's garbage in small doses. Read the column and see if he says that. But Allan does note this:
As it got picked up by news organizations around the world, Haber was questioned by the Associated Press and other organizations. Asked for her sources, she didn't give them. Her sources were her editors. Neither Bellows nor Thomas came to her rescue. "Joyce took a real beating on the Seberg thing," Bellows told me and I reported in The Times. Asked why he didn't step forward as his writer took the blame, he admitted, "I should have."
That's a lie. Haber's item wasn't picked up. Those that ran her column, ran her column. The blind item did not stand out and it was not the source of intense speculation. (Which is why the FBI routed it to another paper shortly after.) In real time she wasn't asked and no one was asked. A few months after her item ran, she would be asked and Bill and Jim Bellows would be as well. But Steve Rendell ignores that paragraph and repeats the LIE that Joyce Harber destroyed Jean. Steve really needs a woman in there, doesn't he? He's not able to get his jollies if he can't attack a woman. In the meantime, he lets the CIA off the hook, now doesn't he?
Allan needs to grow the hell up and stop being such a damn chicken s**t. He lies in his column:
Soon after the item appeared, Seberg lost the baby after a premature delivery. At the baby's funeral, the 31-year-old actress had the casket opened to show the baby was white and the gossip started by The Times was false.
Jean did that? Did she? You knew her Allan? I knew her (and Romain) and you're a damn, dirty liar.
Jean didn't give birth soon after. Ask any one who's ever actually been pregnant -- this would eliminate Allan and Steve -- and we will tell you that August 23rd is not "soon after" May 19th.
Why did Jean give birth (premature) August 23, 1970? Why did she insist the baby's coffin be opened? (And that it be buried in the US -- she gave birth and the baby died in France -- which is where she lived.) It had nothing to do with Joyce Haber or the Los Angeles Times. Newsweek.
Newsweek is the one who caused all that happened. They didn't print a blind item. They ran an item asserting Jean Seberg was pregnant by a Black Panther. That was the August 24, 1970 issue (then as now, the issues were dated ahead). When Newsweek published that, Jean's life crashed. Romain never sued Joyce Haber. He never sued the Los Angeles Times. He sued Newsweek. I'm getting damn tired of the liars and the chicken s**ts.
I have no idea whom Edward Behr gave head to that provided him with so many years of cover but if FAIR wants to grow the hell up, Edward Behr and not Joyce Haber is the one responsible. After the baby's death, Jean never failed to bring up Behr's name. Joyce wasn't an issue with her. Joyce was a "silly woman" and just a gossip columnist who ran a blind item. Edward Behr did the government's dirty work and did it with names.
This is not a minor issue to me. I have never forgiven Newsweek for what they did which is why we so rarely link to Newsweek here. When we do, as with Saturday, they have to jump through hoops. January 21, 2007 at Third's "Roundtable," Betty raised the issue of a book that, as Allain does, attempted to rewrite history to let Newsweek and Edward Behr off the hook. My language will be edited in the excerpt below but -- language warning -- if you go to the "Roundtable." I have no idea why alleged 'expert' Allan or 'alleged' media critic Steve can't get the damn facts right. But I'm not in the mood for their lies. Here's the excerpt from Third:
C.I.: Thank you. That is such a [f**king] lie -- and I just told one member last week I'd try to watch my own language in these editions. I do not take kindly to anyone lying about Jean Seberg. Rebecca said skip the book or you'll be pissed. Jean Seberg went into the hospital in August. The trauma at that time was Newsweek, not The Los Angeles Times. When the Haber blind item ran it was May of 1970.
Betty: May 19, 1970 according to the endnote.
C.I.: Thank you. Seberg ends up in the hospital in August, after Seberg o.d.ed on sleeping pills, which was not thought by all to be a suicide attempt, she was taken to the hospital. While she was in the hospital, Edward Behr wrote up a bit on her for Newsweek. He maintained that he included the 'news' that the baby's father was a Black Panther in his cable to Newsweek's NY headquarters because he was just trying to prove he was 'on' the story and in the know but it wasn't for publication. In the cable he does mark that "Strictly FYI". That ends up running in Newsweek. Kermit Lasner will offer the laughable excuse that he had no idea how that piece of shit made it into the magazine because he'd had a scooter accident at lunch. Newseek printed, August 24th issue, 1970, that, this is a quote, I damn well know what they printed: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in Ocotober is by another man -- a black activist she met in California." That's what got picked up everywhere, including in The Des Moines Register, Seberg's hometown paper. Now that book is supposed to utilize government documents and the FBI had Seberg's phones tapped, including her hospital phone, so they knew very well that her state of mind was frantic after Newsweek published the item. She lost the baby because of the Newsweek article. I question everything that Betty quoted including the timeline. Newsweek printed it, it got picked up everywhere, Jean Seberg lost her baby, and Romain Gary was quite clear whom he blamed when he wrote "The Big Knife" which was published in France-Soir. This was a very huge thing, in press on both sides of the Atlantic. It's still a huge deal to many and one of the main reasons I never link to the piece of crap Newsweek.
Betty: I knew it was wrong. We've discussed this and it's addressed in "Spying and Seberg" but I had to wonder how an author gets it that wrong? Maybe because it's a little easier to go after a dead gossip columnist than it is to go after Newsweek?
C.I.: To be honest with you, that's exactly where I went as well. Joyce Haber was scapegoated for that thing which she never would have read if the city editor hadn't vouched for it. Bill Thomas got off scott free. But what Haber did was a bit of gossip. In a blind item. Newsweek, not a gossip publication, printed a lie in their magazine and that set off a wave outside of any gossip community. They knew what would happen when they did that, both to Seberg and in terms of being echoed throughout the press. That was nothing but corporate media going after a peace activist. It's exactly the kind of crap they've always done and for an author of a book published by The Free Press to either not know or to avoid telling readers the actual truth is just disgusting. It's the August 24, 1970 issue of Newsweek. Anyone who doubts it can get their ass to a library and utilize the reels or microfiche.
Haber's nothing item appeared. (An item that made Jean nervous but one that she laughed off because it was such a blind item.) She never forgave Newsweek nor did Romain. (Both would take their own lives.) And the item being planted from France? That wasn't the FBI, kids, that was the CIA. And all the garbage Steve and Allan offer allows a government plot to destroy a citizen to be minimized and allow a "silly woman" to be made the fallguy when Newsweek has never -- because they can't -- offered an explanation on how they allowed CIA propaganda into their pages intentionally. The item -- not a blind item -- did not meet Newsweek standards. But never expect an answer from Behr or anyone else when Steve Rendall and Allan continue to distract you from how HUGE the government assault on Jean was by getting their panties twisted over a blind item in a gossip column as opposed to a named-item in a news weekly -- Newsweek sent Jean to the hospital, not Joyce's months old column. Get your damn facts straight. What was done to Jean is done all over again to her when you refuse to challenge Newsweek, when you write them out of the story even though they named her, even though their item sent her into the hospital, even though she and Romain blamed them and even though Romain sued them. You're working for the CIA or you're a blithering idiot if you can't get the facts straight on this.
This is obviously a very personal issue to me. I don't take it lightly. I am far from alone on that. In other news, Ty passes on that US war resister Kristoffer Walker has a website. Krisoffer is the 28-year-old Iraq War veteran who has stated he will not return to Iraq.
Here's reality. Bill Thomas was handed that 'tip'. It was given to him by the FBI though he lied for publication. [Jim note: A friend of C.I.'s called and said, "Pull the parenthetical." C.I. dictated this and the friend read it and noted it had something in it that didn't need to be in it and also wrongly assumed someone was dead who is very much alive. So I've logged in and removed the parenthetical.] Allan M. Jalon wants to say Bill said it came from a reporter. Bill may have said that in this decade. As someone who set up an interview for a reporter with Bill back in the seventies and sat in on it, I know Bill's claim then was that he didn't remember where it came from. I also know Bill was continuing to make that claim in the 80s. (When I learned of it in the eighties, I confronted him and asked him if he was ever going to get honest? Apparently not.)
I'm not interested in lies, I'm not interested in garbage. Jean Seberg was destroyed. And she was destroyed by the US government.
What FAIR's Steve Rendall and LAT's Allan M. Jalon are offering are LIES. Bold faced BLOOD LIES and I'll be damned if I'll stand for it.
The Los Angeles Times' part of the story is actually rather minor. It's important more as a footnote in terms of the pain caused to Jean (and Romain). Bill passed on the FBI tidbit to Joyce Haber and said it came from a source -- not a reporter.
And please note, the hard copy of that still exists. Allan appears not to know that -- or appears willing to lie for the paper's former publisher -- ask Allan why his 'factual' column is so damn fact-free? Bill vouched for the source to Joyce on paper. Said the man was reliable. That is in Bill's handwriting. The tidbit was that Jean Seberg was pregnant by a Black Panther. Seberg, an American actress who'd made a home in Paris, was married to Romain Gary (noted French intellectual and author). The Black Panthers were thought to make Middle America 'nervous' at the time and we weren't far past the time -- in this country -- where Petula Clark touching Harry Belfonte's arm while they performed a duet, getting that moment on air was a battle. That was 1968. May 19, 1970 was when Harber's item ran. (In the Los Angeles Times and around the country, her column was syndicated.)
To read Allan's crappy column (or Steve's b.s. at FAIR), you wrongly think all of America said, "Jean Seberg!" They did no such thing. It was a blind item. I can quote it in full if need be. It wasn't very long and it's interesting that neither Allan or Steve wants to quote it. But quoting it would prevent some of the LYING they're doing. It could have been Jean Seberg, but the blind item could have been Jane Fonda (whom most people thought it was) or any number of people. It was a vague item. Steve writes that Allan says J. Edgar Hoover passed it. Does Allan write that? I can only take Allan's garbage in small doses. Read the column and see if he says that. But Allan does note this:
As it got picked up by news organizations around the world, Haber was questioned by the Associated Press and other organizations. Asked for her sources, she didn't give them. Her sources were her editors. Neither Bellows nor Thomas came to her rescue. "Joyce took a real beating on the Seberg thing," Bellows told me and I reported in The Times. Asked why he didn't step forward as his writer took the blame, he admitted, "I should have."
That's a lie. Haber's item wasn't picked up. Those that ran her column, ran her column. The blind item did not stand out and it was not the source of intense speculation. (Which is why the FBI routed it to another paper shortly after.) In real time she wasn't asked and no one was asked. A few months after her item ran, she would be asked and Bill and Jim Bellows would be as well. But Steve Rendell ignores that paragraph and repeats the LIE that Joyce Harber destroyed Jean. Steve really needs a woman in there, doesn't he? He's not able to get his jollies if he can't attack a woman. In the meantime, he lets the CIA off the hook, now doesn't he?
Allan needs to grow the hell up and stop being such a damn chicken s**t. He lies in his column:
Soon after the item appeared, Seberg lost the baby after a premature delivery. At the baby's funeral, the 31-year-old actress had the casket opened to show the baby was white and the gossip started by The Times was false.
Jean did that? Did she? You knew her Allan? I knew her (and Romain) and you're a damn, dirty liar.
Jean didn't give birth soon after. Ask any one who's ever actually been pregnant -- this would eliminate Allan and Steve -- and we will tell you that August 23rd is not "soon after" May 19th.
Why did Jean give birth (premature) August 23, 1970? Why did she insist the baby's coffin be opened? (And that it be buried in the US -- she gave birth and the baby died in France -- which is where she lived.) It had nothing to do with Joyce Haber or the Los Angeles Times. Newsweek.
Newsweek is the one who caused all that happened. They didn't print a blind item. They ran an item asserting Jean Seberg was pregnant by a Black Panther. That was the August 24, 1970 issue (then as now, the issues were dated ahead). When Newsweek published that, Jean's life crashed. Romain never sued Joyce Haber. He never sued the Los Angeles Times. He sued Newsweek. I'm getting damn tired of the liars and the chicken s**ts.
I have no idea whom Edward Behr gave head to that provided him with so many years of cover but if FAIR wants to grow the hell up, Edward Behr and not Joyce Haber is the one responsible. After the baby's death, Jean never failed to bring up Behr's name. Joyce wasn't an issue with her. Joyce was a "silly woman" and just a gossip columnist who ran a blind item. Edward Behr did the government's dirty work and did it with names.
This is not a minor issue to me. I have never forgiven Newsweek for what they did which is why we so rarely link to Newsweek here. When we do, as with Saturday, they have to jump through hoops. January 21, 2007 at Third's "Roundtable," Betty raised the issue of a book that, as Allain does, attempted to rewrite history to let Newsweek and Edward Behr off the hook. My language will be edited in the excerpt below but -- language warning -- if you go to the "Roundtable." I have no idea why alleged 'expert' Allan or 'alleged' media critic Steve can't get the damn facts right. But I'm not in the mood for their lies. Here's the excerpt from Third:
C.I.: Thank you. That is such a [f**king] lie -- and I just told one member last week I'd try to watch my own language in these editions. I do not take kindly to anyone lying about Jean Seberg. Rebecca said skip the book or you'll be pissed. Jean Seberg went into the hospital in August. The trauma at that time was Newsweek, not The Los Angeles Times. When the Haber blind item ran it was May of 1970.
Betty: May 19, 1970 according to the endnote.
C.I.: Thank you. Seberg ends up in the hospital in August, after Seberg o.d.ed on sleeping pills, which was not thought by all to be a suicide attempt, she was taken to the hospital. While she was in the hospital, Edward Behr wrote up a bit on her for Newsweek. He maintained that he included the 'news' that the baby's father was a Black Panther in his cable to Newsweek's NY headquarters because he was just trying to prove he was 'on' the story and in the know but it wasn't for publication. In the cable he does mark that "Strictly FYI". That ends up running in Newsweek. Kermit Lasner will offer the laughable excuse that he had no idea how that piece of shit made it into the magazine because he'd had a scooter accident at lunch. Newseek printed, August 24th issue, 1970, that, this is a quote, I damn well know what they printed: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in Ocotober is by another man -- a black activist she met in California." That's what got picked up everywhere, including in The Des Moines Register, Seberg's hometown paper. Now that book is supposed to utilize government documents and the FBI had Seberg's phones tapped, including her hospital phone, so they knew very well that her state of mind was frantic after Newsweek published the item. She lost the baby because of the Newsweek article. I question everything that Betty quoted including the timeline. Newsweek printed it, it got picked up everywhere, Jean Seberg lost her baby, and Romain Gary was quite clear whom he blamed when he wrote "The Big Knife" which was published in France-Soir. This was a very huge thing, in press on both sides of the Atlantic. It's still a huge deal to many and one of the main reasons I never link to the piece of crap Newsweek.
Betty: I knew it was wrong. We've discussed this and it's addressed in "Spying and Seberg" but I had to wonder how an author gets it that wrong? Maybe because it's a little easier to go after a dead gossip columnist than it is to go after Newsweek?
C.I.: To be honest with you, that's exactly where I went as well. Joyce Haber was scapegoated for that thing which she never would have read if the city editor hadn't vouched for it. Bill Thomas got off scott free. But what Haber did was a bit of gossip. In a blind item. Newsweek, not a gossip publication, printed a lie in their magazine and that set off a wave outside of any gossip community. They knew what would happen when they did that, both to Seberg and in terms of being echoed throughout the press. That was nothing but corporate media going after a peace activist. It's exactly the kind of crap they've always done and for an author of a book published by The Free Press to either not know or to avoid telling readers the actual truth is just disgusting. It's the August 24, 1970 issue of Newsweek. Anyone who doubts it can get their ass to a library and utilize the reels or microfiche.
Haber's nothing item appeared. (An item that made Jean nervous but one that she laughed off because it was such a blind item.) She never forgave Newsweek nor did Romain. (Both would take their own lives.) And the item being planted from France? That wasn't the FBI, kids, that was the CIA. And all the garbage Steve and Allan offer allows a government plot to destroy a citizen to be minimized and allow a "silly woman" to be made the fallguy when Newsweek has never -- because they can't -- offered an explanation on how they allowed CIA propaganda into their pages intentionally. The item -- not a blind item -- did not meet Newsweek standards. But never expect an answer from Behr or anyone else when Steve Rendall and Allan continue to distract you from how HUGE the government assault on Jean was by getting their panties twisted over a blind item in a gossip column as opposed to a named-item in a news weekly -- Newsweek sent Jean to the hospital, not Joyce's months old column. Get your damn facts straight. What was done to Jean is done all over again to her when you refuse to challenge Newsweek, when you write them out of the story even though they named her, even though their item sent her into the hospital, even though she and Romain blamed them and even though Romain sued them. You're working for the CIA or you're a blithering idiot if you can't get the facts straight on this.
This is obviously a very personal issue to me. I don't take it lightly. I am far from alone on that. In other news, Ty passes on that US war resister Kristoffer Walker has a website. Krisoffer is the 28-year-old Iraq War veteran who has stated he will not return to Iraq.
Again, she’s covered this repeatedly
and, as a result, a number of ‘mistakes’ have been rectified. And, by
the way, this nonsense only happened in the US. In France, the press
has always known and reported the CIA’s responsibility.
Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Wednesday, March 14, 2018. Dianne Feinstein embraces a torture queen,
Iraq sees false checkpoints erected on the highway between Baghdad and
Kirkuk, the IMF dictates reality for the US colony of Iraq, and much
more.
Turning to the issue of Iraq, one person stood tall, the other lied and hid his whole life. Let's start with the heroic: Stephen Hawking. He has passed on but his actions and work are remembered.
Turning to the issue of Iraq, one person stood tall, the other lied and hid his whole life. Let's start with the heroic: Stephen Hawking. He has passed on but his actions and work are remembered.
Stephen Hawking condemned the illegal US-UK invasion of Iraq, calling it in 2004 a "war crime" based on "lies."
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/200…
RIP Stephen Hawking. Nothing but respect for a great physicist who despite a debilitating condition, profoundly expanded science. He also always found time to oppose wars & colonization. Vietnam, Iraq, fundraising for palestinians, supporting their liberation & boycotting Israel.
And then there's the embarrassing Oliver Willis who leaves the Bordello of Brock long enough to Tweet:
2018 taught me that opposing the Iraq war, supporting health care reform and defending social security while believing in climate science is "centrist." Which is the new "I don't like it so I'll call it neoliberal."
What's going on?
CNN's Jake Tapper addressed an issue of hatred. Little Ollie No Balls issued a snarky Tweet because Ollie was offended that Jake might call out racism on the left. In Ollie's world you must never call out the left. Even if you work for a news outlet that is supposed to play it down the middle. So Jake responded and called Ollie "left" and people rushed to point out that Ollie's a centrist. Since being tagged accurately, Ollie's been repeating that nonsense about "opposing the Iraq war, supporting health care reform . . ." nonsense non-stop. We don't need reform, we need Medicare for all. Ollie is a centrist who works for David Brock. As for "opposing the Iraq war" -- when, Ollie?
When?
Iraq remains occupied and the war continues. When did you last oppose it?
You haven't done a damn thing and you need to stop pretending otherwise.
Unless you're trying to tell us that you would be commenting but David Brock won't let you. Unless you're repeatedly asking, "Daddy David Brock, will you pull your dick out of my mouth long enough to let me speak out against the ongoing war?" only to find that David Brock will not pull it out to let you speak your mind.
Just stop trying to use Iraq. You don't write about it, you don't Tweet about it. But every time you get into trouble -- or get smacked around by Jake Tapper (yea, Jake!!!!), you go running to the topic of Iraq. Iraq does not exist to be your get-out-of-jail card -- talk about 'First World' Entitlement. Stop using Iraq. If you've got something to say about Iraq, write or talk about it. But stop trying to pretend like you've ever done a damn thing thus far to help the people of Iraq.
The people of California need help. We need help to move into the 21st century. We won't get there via Dianne Feinstein who, please remember, voted for the Iraq War and has justified and excused it, done everything but to try to end it. (Is Dianne really just Oliver Willis in drag? Shhh, no rumors.) We have a chance to step into the 21st century nationally via Kevin de Leon who has already fought for California in the state but is now running for the US Senate.
Kevin is running against Dianne currently and this has a Canadian woman hiding in New York in a tizzy. Why? This isn't her damn election and she needs to butt the hell out of it. If you can't vote in the election, we don't need your opinions on it. It's that simple. Politics are local and, no, Canadian twit, your thoughts on this election are not needed. Nor is your uninformed and ignorant hysteria. I can't even remember that stupid woman's name right now so let's just call her Idiot. Idiot, Kevin's not going to mean a Democrat won't be in the Senate as you have repeatedly lied. Idiot thinks Kevin's going to hurt Dianne's chances at re-election and allow a Republican to pick up the seat. Why does Idiot think that? Because she's a damn idiot who needs to learn to mind her own damn business.
In my state, we will hold a June primary. All candidates who are running for the US Senate seat will be on that ballot. The two candidates who get the most votes will then advance to the November general election. Were the June primary today, that would be Kevin and Dianne. There will not be a Republican on the ballot. If that's confusing to the Idiot, it's because she doesn't know what she's talking about. She needs to shut her damn mouth because she's an idiot who is misinforming people with her idiotic Tweets. We are not New York, we are not Canada. In California, our election is a little bit different. You need to know these facts to comment even semi-intelligently.
Dianne represents a Democrat if you're living in a centrist state -- maybe the centrist state of Ollie Willis' mind? She does not represent California voters and has not for over two decades. She voted for the Iraq War when there was no confusion on our part, in the state of California, that the Iraq War was illegal and wrong. She repeatedly betrays our state with her efforts to move the conversation to the right.
Don't get it yet?
US President Donald Trump is proposing a new person to head the CIA. Where's Kevin stand? Where's Dianne stand?
I would vote NO on confirming Gina Haspel if elected to represent California in the U.S. Senate. Following orders is a poor excuse to commit torture and tear at the fabric of our great democracy.
Having released a torture report, Feinstein knows better than most how morally and legally wrong torture is. This should be an easy call. Not only should she be a NO vote on Trump's CIA pick, she should also be a leading voice rallying all Dems against this nomination.
It is very concerning Senator Feinstein is ‘open to supporting’ CIA nominee Haspel, who ran a ‘black site’ prison that waterboarded and beat prisoners. Believes she has been a ‘good’ deputy CIA Director.
Dianne has excused away and turned a blind eye to torture.
Those might be values to embrace in another state but they are not California values and Dianne needs to go.
And she can take her violet and blue mornings with her.
So where have you gone
Have you gone so far from the eyes that
Speak trouble and even when the warning is
Overwhelming...
Well it's hard to hide from
Eyes that are all over you
That only some
Make you lose your composure
"Well it's hard on my heart"
Said, "Well open your eyes"
"It gets harder every day"
Said, "I need to know now"
Soon you will be gone
Take your violet and blue mornings with you
-- "Violet and Blue," written by Stevie Nicks, first appears on the AGAINST ALL ODDS soundtrack
Take your violet and blue mornings with you, Dianne.
That, in California, we are having to contact Dianne's office to let her know that torture is not a California value? That's appalling and one more indicator of how out of date and out of touch Dianne Feinstein is.
In Iraq, KITABAT's talking about the hideous torture queen Gina Haspel.
But Dianne's so out of touch she thinks a cute little talk -- over tea, you dottering old fool? -- with Gina makes everything all right. It does not. Gina broke laws. Gina's actions are repugnant and unethical. Gina belongs in a prison. That Dianne Feinstein can't grasp that goes to the fact that her brain has completely decayed and that the woman who turns 85 in less than three months needs to retire and if Great Granny Dianne can't retire on her own, it is our job to retire her. 85 is too old to continue serving in the US Senate. Electing her to another six year term would put her at 91 when it's over. That is disgusting.
Iraq's got elections scheduled for May 12th.
Will Moqtada al-Sadr support a second term for Hayder al-Abadi? ALSUMARIA reports the question was put to the Shi'ite cleric and movement leader who stated he would not be endorsing anyone at this time and noted that he was waiting -- still waiting -- for Hayder to address corruption.
AL MADA reports that Ammar al-Hakim met with Vice President Ayad Allawi and the two spoke of the need for the elections to be carried out in a calm manner. But KITABAT explains that voting buying has already started.
In an effort to look like they do something, the Parliament rushed through a 2018 budget earlier this month. To term it 'problematic' is to put it mildly.
ALL IRAQ NEWS reports that Iraq's president, Fuad Masoum, declared yesterday that he was sending the 2018 budget back to Parliament to rework it and that he would not sign off on it as is. ALSUMARIA notes that Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition is screeching that Masoum has violated the Constitution. No, he hasn't. He's used his veto power over laws -- it's the same power that the vice presidents also have. In the fall of 2009, this right/power was clarified when Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi used his veto on the election law. He didn't feel it properly represented and accounted for refugees. He used his power to veto the law. It was sent back to Parliament and reworked. (This is why the 2009 elections ended up taking place in March of 2010.) ALUMARIA also notes that the leader of GORAN (Change) in the Parliament, Amin Bakr, stated that the Parliament refused to use the legal committee when drafting the budget which accounts for so many of the problems with the budget -- including features that were unconstitutional. Meanwhile NINA reports that the United Kingdom has declared the budget Fuad sent back to contain a large budget deficit and stated that it does little to create jobs. Here's their official statement:
UK welcomes the passage of the Iraqi budget last week, which will allow
Ministries to plan their spending and projects. But the budget deficit
remains high, and we were disappointed that there were no new measures
to improve public finance management, including procurement processes.
Doing more to show commitment to the IMF support package will help Iraq
build its credibility as an economic partner and help tackle corruption
and waste of public money. Of course some decisions are more difficult
in election year, but the UK will continue to work with the Iraqi
authorities and the international community throughout the coming year
to improve the environment for local and international business and
investment. With a million young Iraqis coming onto the jobs market
every year, a better environment for business is the only way to create
enough productive jobs. This will be a big issue in the upcoming
elections, and we are asking all the senior politicians what they plan
to do about it.
Fuad's actions really don't matter though. Regardless of him, the budget has to be redone. That's what happens when you sell your soul to the IMF. For years, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani warned the government of Iraq not to fall into the trap the IMF repeatedly attempted to lay out for them. For a long time, Iraq's government listened. Under Hayder al-Abadi, it stopped listening.
Saturday, THE FINANCIAL TRIBUNE reported:
The International Monetary Fund,
which controls Baghdad’s access to over $5 billion in international
loans, has come out against Iraq’s recently-passed 2018 budget, in large
part due to the decrease of the share allocated to the Kurdistan
region.
“The budget is not satisfactory
because we think it’s not enough to maintain macroeconomic stability in
Kurdistan, which is an important region of Iraq,” Christian Josz, deputy
division chief of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asian department,
told Iraq Oil Report, Kurdistan24 reported.
Iraq’s adherence to regulations
in the IMF’s Stand-By Arrangement acts to free up $5.34 billion in
international loans. It also indirectly allows Iraq to access billions
more, due to the positive effect on the confidence of investors and
businesses that IMF partnership carries.
If Baghdad fails to reach
specific economic and governance benchmarks laid out in the SBA, the IMF
can cite non-compliance to put the agreement, and therefore billions of
dollars for Iraq, on hold.
Regardless of Fuad, the budget was going to be reworked. Iraq has no choice on the matter because Hayder sold the country to the IMF and now the IMF gets to dictate what happens. The only thing that stopped in Argentina was the people rising up. (See Naomi Klein here.)
In other news, the airports in the KRG are being re-opened.
Some are hailing Hayder.
They don't need to.
No, don't hail the puppet, hail the puppet's master.
Welcome the reopening of international airports in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, the result of dogged diplomacy over many months. Important step towards post-ISIS stability, which requires a strong and unified KRG within the constitutional framework of Iraq.
So Hayder finally broke under US pressure?
Is anyone surprised? Iraq's a colony of the US. The war drags on and the colonization continues.
And what's 'liberation' look like?
ALSUMARIA reports an attack last night on a Baghdad cafe that left 1 person injured (a grenade was tossed into the cafe), 2 people were shot dead to the north of Baquba and an armed clash in Samarra left 1 Iraqi military officer dead. In addition, Wael Grace (AL MADA) reports fake checkpoints have been set up on the highway between Baghdad and Kirkuk to carry out violent attacks. So far the deaths include 10 people shot dead and five people burned inside a car.
The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, PACIFICA EVENING NEWS, BLACK AGENDA REPORT and DISSIDENT VOICE -- updated:
90210, BUFFY and NETFLIX
6 hours ago
The flying dino?
6 hours ago
The CIA takeover of everything
6 hours ago
Tillerson, Zurawik, books, etc
7 hours ago
Trump can't quit him
12 hours ago
THIS JUST IN! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE LOVE!
12 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment