Sunday, July 05, 2015

Editorial: The endless joke that is Jill Stein

Oh, look, she suffers from Hillary Clinton's ever changing hair disease as well:

  • Had great chat about evils of testing with the great in the green room today.

  • She looks frightening in the photo but how telling that her 'big' issue is standardized testing.

    You do realize, don't you, that standardized testing has resulted in the deaths of thousands in Yemen and Libya and . . .

    Oh, wait, we were thinking of drones.

    So the failed and embarrassing 2012 Green Party presidential candidate is trying to get the nomination for 2016.

    She accomplished nothing in 2012, you may remember.

    In their now infamous 2012 essay "Let The Fun Begin," Ava and C.I. observed:

    Supposedly the Green Party is opposed to war.

    So when Tim Arango reported the White House was negotiating with Nouri to send more troops back into Iraq, Jill Stein should have led on that.

    But she's a politician which is just a whore without the desire to please a customer.

    So Jill ignored it.

    She ignored a lot.

    Six weeks ago, in fact, after Barack cratered in the first debate, she and her campaign began going after Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.


    You're a Green.  You're on the left.  The high profile left vote getter just imploded on national TV.  It's the perfect time for you to pick up some of his voters.

    But you refuse to try.  You rush to go after Romney and Ryan instead.

    Why is that?

    Because you are not a real party.

    Because you will forever be the little sister of the Democratic Party.

    Because every four years, you start off with promise and end up revealing just how craven and disgusting you are.

    If we are offering commentary four years from now, please note, being a Green will not save you.  Being third party will not save you.

    We will call you out in real time.

    And, in fact, all of us at Third will call you out.

    The do nothing Jill thinks she deserves the nomination.


    Apparently because she's White.

    That's why you're supposed to overlook her failures and get on board with her -- the way Medea I Need Attention Benjamin already has.

    But we read her long and ridiculous announcement speech.

    Our first question?

    Does Jill believe vaccines cause autism because she flirts with that in her remarks and if others are going to be nailed to the cross for that belief, she needs to be as well.

    In over 1400 words, Jill never mentions Iraq.

    What is about this uptight fool and her refusal -- in 2012 and now this year -- to ever mention Iraq?

    The Green Party is supposed to be for peace but Jill can't champion peace.

    Last week, Jim Webb declared his intention to seek the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. In his speech, he noted:

    Let me assure you, as President I would not have urged an invasion of Iraq, nor as a Senator would I have voted to authorize it. I warned in writing five months before that invasion that we do not belong as an occupying power in that part of the world, and that this invasion would be a strategic blunder of historic proportions, empowering Iran and in the long run China, unleashing sectarian violence inside Iraq and turning our troops into terrorist targets.
    I would not have been the President who used military force in Libya during the Arab Spring. I warned repeatedly that this use of our military did not meet the test of a grave national security interest, that it would have negative implications for the entire region, and that no such action should take place without the approval of the Congress. The leadership in the Congress at that time not only failed to give us a vote; they did not even allow a formal debate, and the President acted unilaterally. The attack in Benghazi was inevitable in some form or another, as was the continuing chaos and the dissemination of large numbers of weapons from Qaddafi’s armories to terrorist units throughout the region.

    In his announcement that he was seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Lincoln Chafee noted:

    I’d like to talk about how we found ourselves in the destructive and expensive chaos in the Middle East and North Africa and then offer my views on seeking a peaceful resolution.
    There were twenty-three Senators who voted against the Iraq war in October 2002. Eighteen of us are still alive and I’m sure everyone of us had their own reasons for voting “NO”. I’d like to share my primary three.
    The first reason is that the long painful chapter of the Viet Nam era was finally ending. This is my generation and the very last thing I wanted was any return to the horrific bungling of events into which we put our brave fighting men and women.
    In fact we had a precious moment in time where a lasting peace was in our grasp. Too many senators forgot too quickly about the tragedy of Viet Nam.
    A second reason was that I had learned in the nine months of the Bush/Cheney administration prior to September 11th, not to trust them at their word. As a candidate, Governor Bush had said many things that were for the campaign only- governing would be a lot different. For example a campaign staple was, “I am a uniter, not a divider”. He said very clearly that his foreign policy would be humble, not arrogant. And he promised to regulate carbon dioxide, a climate change pollutant. These promises were all broken in the very first days of his presidency.
    Sadly, the lies never stopped. This was an administration not to be trusted.
    My third reason for voting against the war was based on a similar revulsion to mendacity. Many of the cheerleaders for the Iraq war in the Bush administration had been writing about regime change in Iraq and American unilateralism for years.
    They wrote about it in the 1992 Defense Planning Guide, in the 1996 Report to Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the 1997 Project for a New American Century and in the 1998 letter to President Clinton.

    A little over a month before the vote on the war I read an article in the Guardian by Brian Whitaker. Listen to this:
    “In a televised speech last week, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked.
    “We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region”, he said. Mr. Mubarak is an old-fashioned kind of Arab leader and, in the brave new post-September-11 world, he doesn’t quite get the point.
    What on earth did he expect the Pentagon’s hawks to do when they heard his words of warning? Throw up their hands in dismay? – “Gee, thanks, Hosni. We never thought of that. Better call the whole thing off right away.”
    They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr. Mubarak and the hawks do agree on one thing: War with Iraq could spell disaster for several regimes in the Middle East.
    Mr. Mubarak believes that would be bad. The hawks, though, believe it would be good.

    For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.”
    It’s bad enough that the so-called neocons, most of whom had never experienced the horror of war, were so gung ho. But worse yet, was that they didn’t have the guts to argue their points straight up to the American people. They knew there were no weapons of mass destruction but wanted their war badly enough to purposely deceive us.
    After reading the Guardian article, I asked for a briefing from the CIA. I said, “I have to vote on this war resolution in a few weeks, show me everything you have on Weapons of Mass Destruction”. The answer, after an hour-long presentation out at CIA headquarters in Langley was: not much. “Flawed intelligence” is completely inaccurate. There was NO intelligence. Believe me I saw “everything they had”.

    It’s heartbreaking that more of my colleagues failed to do their homework. And incredibly, the neocon proponents of the war who sold us on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction are still key advisors to a number of presidential candidates today.

    We could go on and on.

    But instead of noting and quoting all the candidates who are talking Iraq, let's point out that Jill Stein's silence puts her side-by-side with the only other candidate avoiding Iraq: Hillary Clinton.

    The press really need to explore Dr. Jill Stein's stance on the cause of autism  since she raised it in her announcement speech.

    More to the point, everyone needs to be asking why someone wanting the presidential nomination of the Green Party can't even address the topic of Iraq?

    Jill Stein's a fake and she was ridiculous in 2012.

    She'll be ridiculous in 2016 as well, if given the chance.

    The only 'change' she has to offer is a new hair do.

    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
    Poll1 { display:none; }