Russia Military Accuses U.S. Of Supporting ISIS

"The main thing preventing the final defeat of ISIS in Syria is not the terrorists' military capability but support and pandering to them by American colleagues," Russian military spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a statement.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 4 2017 17:17 utc | 1

I visited theintercept.com and I have checked what stories they had on Syria and Yemen. Not that many. On Syria, the focus seems to be to criticize the bombing of civilians by USA on Trump's orders. Three out of last five stories. Ms. Saleh has yet to write anything on Syria for The Intercept.

Intercept seems to have rather perfunctory coverage of foreign affairs if their sparse stories on Syria and Yemen give representative sample. Which is in keeping with their motto "fearless, adversarial journalism." In other words, choose issues with care to remain a member of the "mainstream" in good standing. Plus, the stories should be interesting. The number of cholera victims in Yemen exceeding 21,000? Boooring.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2017 17:33 utc | 2

Al Julani lost an arm in a RuAF strike on HTS commanders as payback for their attempt at capturing Russian MP’s earlier in Sept:

https://www.rt.com/news/405603-nusra-leader-injured-syria/

The big payback..

Posted by: Lozion | Oct 4 2017 17:42 utc | 3

"...I like to think that I caused this."

Yes, b, I like to think it also. I rejoice in the possibility. I call it a probability.

Why? Because I see the footprint of the "small" journalists everywhere now, cited and quoted and plagiarized - and mocked and fearfully countered and poorly refuted - increasingly in the larger, monied outlets. As truth rises to the surface and the mediocre fabrications of liars can be shredded by one incisive comment, it becomes increasingly likely that Moon of Alabama causes a liar to walk her lies back, and prove her lying.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 4 2017 18:15 utc | 4

>>>>> Lozion | Oct 4, 2017 1:42:46 PM | 4

Al Julani lost an arm in a RuAF strike

Rita Katz seemed to take delight in denying the Russian claim based on HTS "intel". She seems like a slightly less loony version of Pamela Geller, although she does seem to believe that Amaq is a credible source which of itself is pretty bonkers.

But she's not alone with The Guardian being equally thrilled that the Russians hadn't killed al-Baghdadi according to Amaq and frequently quoting Ahrar al-Sham as a source.

Posted by: Ghostship | Oct 4 2017 18:53 utc | 5

BTW, OT but relevant, because you won't read about it in the MSM.

According to the Angry Arab a FSA commander in northern Aleppo was caught on video by the YPG sexually abusing the 13-year old daughter of an FSA martyr, he obviously couldn't wait for martyrdom himself.

And the pro-opposition woman and her daughter murdered recently in Istanbul, that the MSM blamed on Assad because of her anti-government writing, was most likely murdered by a close relative in the FSA who fought in Madaya and then was evacuated to Idlib. The motive apparently was that he was paid by someone in the FSA because the old woman was investigating FSA corruption.

Posted by: Ghostship | Oct 4 2017 19:03 utc | 6

good stuff b.. keep shining a light on all these different ''''paid for by taxpayer dollars''' propaganda hacks..

Posted by: james | Oct 4 2017 19:57 utc | 7

"Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?"

This is the lead story on The Intercept today.

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

This not a pro-empire article. Maybe hiring this girl is a way to hedge a bit. I'd like to think The Intercept is more astute with regards to Syria.

We'll see...

Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2017 20:02 utc | 8

@9 ben - my read on intercept... extremely ambiguous at best... or, 'care for a bit of arsenic with your meal today'?

Posted by: james | Oct 4 2017 20:14 utc | 9

Hiring of Ms. Saleh does not seem to be related to Syria, but a major plan to have some photogenic young Muslim writing on immigration etc. As far as Syria, Yemen etc. are concerned, the line seems to be "anti-imperial", but sotto voce. This article is a good example. In the form of a nice and short review of some recent books on Syria it offers the claim that "The West" could not care less about the opinions of actual Syrians (but in general and polite terms).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 4 2017 20:18 utc | 10

Please remember, everyone, that The Intercept was funded with a $250 million kick off by Pierre Omidyar, who also funded groups in Ukraine in the lead-up to the coup there. Every article they published on Ukraine was pro-coup and pro-"anti-terrorsm action" by the neo-nazis except one. That one was written by Glenn Greenwald, and though not full-throated anti-coup, was at least balanced.

And remember that Matt Taibbi quit shortly after signing on there, citing Omidyar's constant interference and editorial meddling.

So, while Greenwald may enjoy some editorial independence, and The Intercept certainly does publish many great and informative articles about other topics, one should be no less skeptical of their articles than of any other "alternative" source.

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 4 2017 20:51 utc | 11

@6 In my book the Guardian has lost all credibility since the Snowden days..
@12 Yes agreed..

Posted by: Lozion | Oct 4 2017 20:58 utc | 12

In the first line of the above piece I have linked three pieces showing evident anti-Syrian bias by the Intercept. I wonder why some here seem challenged to find any.

Posted by: b | Oct 4 2017 21:02 utc | 13

Greenwald was what made TIC initially readable in 2015 but now he is banished from editorial influence allowing only few pieces criticizing NYT coverage of Russia gate nonsense. Syria was always presented from CIA DOD angle of lies and misrepresentation praising White Helmets sham way before TIC hired her.

Posted by: Kalen | Oct 4 2017 22:05 utc | 14

Why it is important to who writes where I see so far no interest in alledged statement of Putin in Moscow conference that NK can be attacked by nukes trying to destroy their nuke capabilities but the outcome would be uncertain.

It is shocking and irresponsible if true. The man just few weeks ago said they will it grass before they give up of what guarantees their survival as a country and regime and hence there is no military option but assurance of their safety from attack, now he is contemplating even theoretically such a crime of unprovoked as of UN charter, agression.

May be Vladimir writes a book what happened to him?

Posted by: Kalen | Oct 4 2017 22:37 utc | 15

james @ 9: "'care for a bit of arsenic with your meal today'?"

Yep, bit of caution while reading LOL:)

Daniel @ 11: Thanks for the info, very relevant.

@ b 13: Don't think I've ever read anyone I always agree with. As always, thanks for your insights & therapy.

Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2017 22:44 utc | 16

May be Vladimir writes a book what happened to him?

Posted by: Kalen | Oct 4, 2017 6:37:53 PM | 15

Let us speak to the point, after all – can someone launch a global disarming strike? Indeed. Will it reach its targets? It's unclear because no one knows for sure what is where.

oh noz, putty put has an inner thug. who would have thunk it.

But let us speak to the point, after all -- can someone launch a global propaganda, security and intelligence outfit without approval from the princes of the realm? It's unclear because no one knows for sure who is who and where is what.

Let's try this for size:

1 - numero uno strategic adversary for the zionist entity is which country? China? Russia? Iran?? Come on.

It is America.

2 - numero uno strategic adversary for the global mafia is which country? China? Xi says we're committed. Putty put? He keeps saying, please, us too! Iran? They are happy to sell out at 16%.

America is the superpower that was goaded by (you know which crowd) to rattle sabres at the pinacle of power and prestige, in 90s.

America is the superpower that was goaded by shitty brit spook cum writers to "act like an empire".

America is the patsy that will be holding the $30T bag that was used to build the infrastructure for the "NWO".

Now keep sucking putty put's cock. Feeble minded lot, truly.

Posted by: nobody | Oct 4 2017 22:59 utc | 17

Keep 'em honest, b. They don't seem to have self-correction themselves.
Her main Twitter photo is anti-Assad. What more proof is needed?

Daniel 11
Thanks for the reminder that we take our ammunition where we can get it ... with caution for bias, spin, etc. Occasionally tidbits of truth find their way out.

Posted by: Curtis | Oct 5 2017 0:29 utc | 18

This story reflects not only on the shortcomings of Glen Greenwald but also much of the left when it comes to Syria. We should all remember that many leftist embraced the Syrian spring as a progressive movement against the Assad 'tyranny'. I guess it can be excused in the spring of 2012 when all of this broke out. But even then it was clear that the rebellion was led by some of the most reactionary forces in the ME backed by the Saudis and the US. At the time I despaired at how foolish these "leftist" were. This involved many people I highly respected such as writers at Mondoweiss, Max Blumenthal and others but they fell for this nonsense but most have backed off.

Much of this came from the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had heavily infiltrated the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus. They turned that camp into a military encampment fighting against Assad. Many Western leftists who were sympathetic with the plight of Palestinians fighting for justice in Israel simply assumed these jihadists were on their side. The British Trotskyites (is Proyject still lingering here?) haven't changed but most others have seemed to have realize their error.

In any case I am not ready to criticize the Intercept for this appointment -- this woman could simply be one of those deluded fools who have since realized they were wrong and are willing to change their ways.

Posted by: ToivoS | Oct 5 2017 0:37 utc | 19

"In any case I am not ready to criticize the Intercept for this appointment...."

I do not care whom they are appointing, nor I have insight what is Intercept's leaning
I read GG while he was at Salon.com, after that no, reading sometime Jon Swartz ex tinyrevolution.com who is with them now.

That said, I see the Intercept as a part of mainstream media. It follows the Guaridan's line, the past of regime, imperial sins, can be criticized. There is aura of social progressiveness. However the present and current imperial project (Iraq, Libya, Syria etc) are unquestionable and must be supported. After all the owner(s) of these outlets are one of them.

Just because B is mentioned it here I would not pay attention on them at all.

Again appointing this woman is part of the Imperial mystique and lie that had lasted and ended with Obama. With Trump and decline of US that lie has gone and we have real US, and what US represent and stand for: hate.

Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 5 2017 1:09 utc | 20

@18 Chauncey Gardiner

One memorable statement from John Pilger:

"Trump should be understood as a symptom and a caricature of a violent, extremist system, understand that, you can understand how the past has helped create the present."

Pilger is spot on here, as he so often is. Trump is indeed a symptom. That so many pundits, journalists and academics who comment on American politics were shocked speechless by his victory tells you something about the quality of their analysis. They should have seen him coming from miles away but they didn't because they bought into the myth of American exceptionalism and the indispensable nation. They still do.

That is why there is no discussion of the cause, only endless gossip-level sniping and griping about the symptoms and deep deep denial of what America, the empire, is all about. As the saying goes, "if you don't know where you come from, you don't know where you are going" and Americans largely don't know (or don't want to know). Pathological ignorance and denial have consequences. The irony is that many Americans are in denial about being in denial, but that won't save them from reaping what they sow. The collapse has already begun.

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Oct 5 2017 1:17 utc | 21

Thanks for pointing this out!

The Intercept hired a writer with an obviously partisan position in the U.S. war on Syria. Her statements are not truthful.

..hence, not a writer but a propagandist. Zero credibility.

Posted by: Thominus | Oct 5 2017 2:30 utc | 22

Some of her Arabic tweets and retweets are anti-Shia. Others have called out Greenwald about this and disavows responsibility.

Posted by: Jopg | Oct 5 2017 2:52 utc | 23

Grieved and james and others. Yes, we're right to praise b for patrolling the media space and correcting the deceit. I also detect a gentle admonition in his piece to us, to get on our bikes and engage the liars in like manner, much though it rankles, not just to sit around scratching or combing each other's backs.

Posted by: Petra | Oct 5 2017 11:06 utc | 24

^^^ Not that I'm suggesting a few of us don't.

Posted by: Petra | Oct 5 2017 11:08 utc | 25

Trump's violent fan base won't be reading the intercept. The fake left may read it. The fake left that still perceive Obomber and Clintons as liberals. A woman with a hijab will appeal to them.

The Congressional Zionist warmongers will point to her as a hijab-wearing liberal (albeit one who recognizes her subservient role beneath men) who supports Yinon's Greater Israel.

Posted by: fast freddy | Oct 5 2017 11:10 utc | 26

Chauncey G ....One memorable statement from John Pilger: "Trump should be understood as a symptom and a caricature of a violent, extremist system, understand that, you can understand how the past has helped create the present." That system created extremist and violent population (vast majority) that is not different at all from system itself...

300 million American idiots can stew in their own juice. Even the empathetic among the other 7.5 billion of us are mostly losing all patience and interest. The massive value of Trump is that Trump and the phenomenon of Trump have massively expedited the unmasking that had been gradual, confirming what we already knew and unchaining the lingerers and waverers.

Posted by: Petra | Oct 5 2017 11:25 utc | 27

@26Taxi....more about the perceived actual affect(her recanting) than the mostly unpercieved effect MoA has each day...IMO

@38Petra.....Yes isn't it glorious.....

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Oct 5 2017 11:40 utc | 28

Sorry that should be @30Petra

Posted by: Tannenhouser | Oct 5 2017 11:41 utc | 29

More on Putin and Korea. It is more nuanced.

Putin said that the nuclear option against North Korea may fail, which is a form of discouraging it. He found fault in the policies of both NK and USA, and asserted that Russia will not cooperate with new sanctions. Would China cut fuel supplies, Russia would step to the plate (they already did).

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 5 2017 13:38 utc | 30

The Intercept is part of the ongoing trend of alternative progressive publications in the United States, financed by extremely wealthy interests and private foundations, which promote a generally liberal domestic policy while trying to distract attention from fundamental foreign policy issues like the neoliberal free trade programs and the covert foreign regime change programs that Clinton Democrats and Bush Republicans have championed.

This is why the Intercept, like the rest of the corporate media, has had zero coverage of the NAFTA negotiations, or the Ukraine crisis, while generally promoting stories about humanitarian "White Hats" in Syria, Russia the bad actor, etc. Some classic examples of this trend:
...2016/10/29/the-u-s-and-russia-ensure-a-balance-of-terror-in-syria/
. . .2017/04/20/the-syrian-people-have-been-betrayed-by-all-sides/

What they absolutely won't discuss is the fact that this is all about economic advantage - that, after Syria refused to cut economic ties with Iran, the decision was made to destabilize the Syrian region via feeding weapons and money to ISIS and Al Qaeda and anyone else who could take on the government, with the end goal being the replacement of an government with Iranian ties with one with Saudi Arabian ties. That's just not an allowed discussion.

Posted by: nonsense factory | Oct 5 2017 16:03 utc | 31

What they absolutely won't discuss is the fact that this is all about economic advantage - that, after Syria refused to cut economic ties with Iran, the decision was made to destabilize the Syrian region via feeding weapons and money to ISIS and Al Qaeda and anyone else who could take on the government, with the end goal being the replacement of an government with Iranian ties with one with Saudi Arabian ties. That's just not an allowed discussion.

Posted by: nonsense factory | Oct 5, 2017 12:03:21 PM | 31

"Economic advantage" may explain banana wars etc., but outside Western Hemisphere it is hard to see any monetary benefits from Military-Industrial Complex. This complex provides profits, grandstanding opportunities and prestige, so its position within the Establishment seems higher than more discrete if more profitable "complexes", like financial and medical sectors. And MIC must have enemies, strategies etc. In the absence of armadas landing troops in Mexico or Canadian Arctic to invade USA, existence of enemies cannot be simply left to the chancy flow of events.

My pet idea, Tuvalu as the mortal danger, is of course a non-starter on the account of minuscule cost of addressing that threat. Thus there are basically only two significant and reliable sources of enemies: Russia and whoever poses "existential threat to Israel". Existence of Israel in the shape that we all love and cherish requires the ability to stamp out any opposition to their national pastime (making life miserable for Palestinians). Thus Hezbollah is the top target, then everybody who supports Hezbollah, that would be Syria and Iran, then everybody who gives some support to Syria and Iran -- that includes Russia and China, at which point we need every penny of our defense budget.

The second category is existential threat to people who share are excellent and beautiful ideas, like Ukrainians yearning for the freedom of Yevropa, or Georgians trying to re-unite with long oppressed Abkhasians and South Ossetians. This is a bit iffy, but at least we can offer credible deterrent to threats of the next tier, Baltics, Poland, and more sanguine Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Then there is idea that must have worthy application, star war defense that St. Ronald had seen in his vision. That requires a nuclear opponent that has sufficiently primitive industry. As the development of anti-missiles systems proceeds at its measured pace, more advance countries can produce countermeasures at small fraction of the cost, so besides China and Russia, it is necessary to have opponents in Iran and South Korea.

Then there is "war on terror" which is a bit of a child that is ugly, hunchbacked and unwanted (as they say in the country of my birth), but it has to get some resources to show that "we work on the problem", as the problem is perceived by the public. Thus stuff like three American soldiers killed on the border of Niger and Mali.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 5 2017 20:09 utc | 32

@32 Piotr
"Economic advantage" may explain banana wars etc., but outside Western Hemisphere it is hard to see any monetary benefits from Military-Industrial Complex."

It's all about the economics, really. It's interesting that RT and Sputnik and other Russian media are as reluctant to openly discuss this issue as MSNBC and FOX are, but the real struggle is over who gets to supply the world with fossil fuels, and who doesn't. Then, there's China - which has no real international media presence at all, and which, having no fossil fuels to export, is leading the world in replacing its energy supply with renewables.

Take Syria. As Wikileaks cables prove beyond any doubt, the U.S. State Department was obsessed with getting Syria to move into the Saudi-Israeli sphere of influence. Iran, on the other hand, wanted to cut pipeline, railroad, airport and electricity grid deals with Syria, then expand them to Lebanon - and from there, a gas pipeline direct to Europe with Syria getting a percentage. That's 100% economics. Russia's Gazprom has deals with Iran, and would have some access to such a pipeline as well. Notably, neither the Russians nor the Americans like to talk about this openly - but Syria's Assad simply took the better deal, which is what Iran was offering. So the US and Israel and the Saudis went with the destabilization program, with Jordan and Turkey playing key roles at the time.

Or take Afghanistan - on this side, Iran was trying to open IPI, the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, and the US wanted TAPI, the Turkmenistan-Afghan-Pakistan-India pipeline, to open up Central Asian gas and oil exports (from leases held by Chevron and Exxon). This is 100% economic warfare.

Or take the South China Sea - again, a conflict over control of oil shipping routes and of oil development in the region. That's what Obama's "pivot to Asia" was all about.

The Russians are as uncomfortable as the Americans when it comes to discussing these matters openly, since their efforts to get Russian-friendly governments in eastern Europe are for the same reason, ensuring that Russia can sell gas to Europe. That's a central feature of the Georgia war in 2008, Azeri conflicts, the Yugoslavia conflict, the coup in the Ukraine - who gets to get paid at the end of the day. This is 100% economic warfare.

It's a three stage program - first, the neoliberal trade deals are implemented. If that doesn't work, the covert regime change "color revolution" operations come into play. If they fail, then the only option left is direct military intervention - which brings us to the brink of WWIII. And, since that's what Hillary Clinton was pushing for, I'm still glad that psychotic lunatic warmonger got defeated.

Posted by: photosymbiosis | Oct 5 2017 20:53 utc | 33

Dear photosymbiosis,

there are numerous think tanks trying to prove that MIC makes economic sense, "vital mission". The apologists of MIC will argue about the "control of oil shipping routes" and what not, but what would happen if US Navy would stop its patrol that endanger life and limb of the seamen? The same traffic would circulate, with few less accidents.

Or take Ukraine. It controls some pipelines that are useful for Russia and useless for USA. Egging the nationalists there to make a coup was a masterful way to increase enmity with Russia, because MIC justifies fattest programs with that enmity. But the problem is with the success: Ukraine being useless for the West is the ugly unwanted child of the "free world", nobody knows what to do with it. It is too big to have her problem fixed with some spare handouts. The latest idea is to use it for exhibition purposes, say, anti-tank weapons (few Op-Eds in NYT advocated that), but the cooler heads in MIC consider the possibility that that exhibition could be a flop, like the modern weapons collected by Saakashvili. Basically, the West got itself a basket of problems with the benefit that it annoys Russia (this is a bit like spending on entertainment, like cock fighting, bear biting etc.)

China is "projecting force" to protect sea routes on South China Sea, basically to be a senior member of the power club, with some "zone of influence".

The most hilarious case was the "almost war" concerning Hans Island, a gloomy featureless and small hunk of granite between Greenland and Canada. Before reaching an agreement, both Denmark and Canada increased their navy budget. Now Canada can project force in high Arctic, at least in years when the ice is not insanely thick as it is all to often the case near Hans Island. Even so, commentators strived to find some economic reasons, e.g. some shrimp in the straight, or who knows, there could be oil under all that granite?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 5 2017 21:52 utc | 34

Nicely considered, photo symbiosis @ 33 (OMG: Secret Masonic Code Number!).

I'd add that Iran and Qatar share the North Pars natural gas field, considered the largest such resource in the world, and the reason for the competing pipeline plans.

Qatar was fully involved in the destruction of the remaining secular, socialist republic in the Middle East - including using their al Jazeera network to broadcast "sermons" by Muslim clerics calling on all Muslims to go to Syria and join the jihad.

Perhaps as it became clear to them that Syria was not going to be "regime changed," they hedged their bets by being more open to the Iranian pipeline. That could be why Saudi Arabia began their (failing) feud against Qatar.

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 5 2017 23:07 utc | 35

Posted by: Lozion | Oct 4, 2017 4:58:02 PM | 12

It seems quite the conundrum at first glance, but really the obvious bullshit posted in so-called mainstream fishwraps such as the guardian shouldn't be encouraging any of us to change - we should already be skeptical of anything published no matter the site, or the opinion being peddled.
A wide range of news sources is part of the solution as long as one remains objective especially when the opinion appears to coincide with yer own opinions. As well as appreciating that some news stories are on subjects which have too many witnesses to be discarded as 100% untrue; there must be a careful skeptical examination of the portiions of such topics which while part of the public spectacle, do not have nearly so many witnesses. Things such as third party declarations of intent which have all the credibility of a jailhouse confession - Yep I'm lookin at you ISIS PR department.

I still read the guardian most days because a) it is free and b) it provides a generally accurate indication of what subjects are occupying the mainstream media - that is invaluable since a great many 'average humans' obsess on whatever it is the MSM is currently also obsessing on.

The intercept is useless for that second point since it expends a great deal of time and energy deceiving its consumers about arcane matters which only rarely become major - or at least the aspect the intercept promotes only rarely features as major points of view - I guess that is why some people get tricked, the intercept discusses issues or parts of issues others don't - trouble is that it is usually framed in the typical neolib or neocon POVs.

I'm concerned about an issue that all the standard outlets try to avoid. That is the increasing difficulty of using the net to disseminate opinions or data which runs counter to elite's interests.

I ran into an extreme one a coupla hours ago. The usenet is now virtually useless as a transmission vector.
I had considered it a relatively safe vector as long as basic safeguards against intrusion were used, but now it seems that text and data which cannot prove itself to be innocent of any breach of ridiculous unjust, elite reinforcing 'anti-piracy' judgement, is destroyed almost immediately it is uploaded.

In the long run these erosions will cost us all a lot more even than the intercept's lies.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Oct 6 2017 2:48 utc | 36

I think by now we have learned enough about First Look and The Intercept to be very critical of its offerings. I personally have lost my respect for the celeb journos attached to Nazi-enabler Pierre Omidyar's organization. For them to remain tethered to Omidyar, in any fashion, speaks volumes about their integrity.

The best coverage of Pierre Omidyar and First Look, and Glenn Greenwald, that I've seen is on Pando Daily. Paul Carr and Mark Ames dig in. The back and forth between Pando and Greenwald (and Jeremy Schahill) is interesting and informative.

Poor Edward Snowden. He did all that he could to evade the deep state and get to the people, but the deep state is very, very powerul. And he didn't succeed. Does he realize that now? If he does, it can't be easy for him to say anything nasty about those who stood by him when he needed help the most. I saw both movies about Snowden, Laura's and Oliver Stones. I think it's with Stone's treatment that we learn that Snowden was politically dumb, but morally normal. I've heard Edward say so, in so many words. We don't hear from him much anymore. I'd be interested to know his thoughts.

Readers here seem to have forgotten Murtaza Hussein's awful pro USAID, pro White Helmets piece on the Intercept. Another blogger mentioned it and linked to it, in some post I was reading. I was horrified, saddened, enraged and, of course, betrayed. I keep the bookmark, but simply label it in some way (for example: "fail") If I started deleting all of my progressive bookmarks, because those orgs turned out to be fakers, I'd have few links left, such is the state of the Left these days.

Posted by: Arby | Oct 22 2017 19:51 utc | 37