Left vs Left on Syria — major US-Israel meddling or not?

A sort of faceoff on this issue between Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada, on his Substack, and Joseph Daher, billed as a Swiss Syrian socialist, at The Tempest (seen by me on Counterpunch).

The Tempest did an interview with Daher that starts with this intro:

Some on the Left have claimed without foundation that their rebellion was orchestrated by the U.S. and Israel. Others have uncritically romanticized these rebel forces as rekindling the original popular revolution that nearly overthrew Assad’s regime in 2011. Neither captures the complex dynamics unfolding in Syria today.

And, this is why I see the "faceoff." Winstanley is the type of person being called out, but is it more by The Tempest or more by Daher personally?

That said, the differences start with something else. Daher, while saying that the main rebel force, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, while not a walk in the park, has evolved since repudiating ties with al-Qaeda in 2016 and focusing on Syrian nationalist issues. He notes it has promised to protect Druze and Ismailis. (That said, NPR yesterday talked about how many of the latter are already fleeing Syria.) He also said that since that 2016 separation, it has repressed people of al-Qaida and ISIS backgrounds.

Winstanley looks at such claims with a more gimlet eye, noting their current name is a "rebranding" since separating from al-Qaida, talking about pre-2016 atrocities in a post-2016 Syria:

Nor did such abuses stop with the rebranding to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Human Rights Watch says it has documented severe abuses by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the Idlib enclave it has controlled in recent years.

Sounds a bit different than Daher.

Winstanley adds that HTS leader al-Julani "has never been held to account."

Now, to the header. It's true that neither the US nor Israel has explicitly backed Turkey's actions in northern Syria. But, everybody who knows Turkish President Reççip Tayyip Erdogan knows he plays under-the-table footsie with Bibi Netanyahu. The US knows the basics of this and has chosen not to intervene. Otherwise, Daher appears to take statements by both Israeli and US political leaders at face value.

Winstanley does not. Here's the background he provides:

That's the US reality.

Over the last 13 years, the various armed groups working together to overthrow the Syrian government have been backed by the US, Gulf states, Turkey and Israel itself.

In a rare moment of honesty – one he later had to apologize for – then US Vice President Joe Biden admitted in 2014 that the surge of funding had aided groups the US considers extremists.

Biden said that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and others “were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war … [that] they poured hundreds of millions of dollars, tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad.”

This is the Israeli reality from years past, per Winstanley.

The last time al-Qaida and other insurgent groups were present in the Golan Heights, Israel established warm relations with them, treating their fighters in a specially constructed field hospital and even arming them.

Netanyahu on Sunday signaled the revival of that policy. He said that Israel would pursue “the same approach we maintained when we set up a field hospital here that treated thousands of Syrians injured during the civil war. Hundreds of Syrian children were born here in Israel.”

There's more on both at his piece, with links. That includes Bibi trying to take credit for the downfall of Damascus.

Daher has a number of good things to say about the Palestinian issue, and as a socialist, trying to delink it from nation-state issues and to boost Palestinian class issues. That still doesn't mean that me isn't wrong on the nation-state issues in Syria. That's especially as Winstanley noted that some Syrian insurgents appear to have already been in contact with Israelis.

This is even as, at Jacobin, on these other issues, Daher said that it's Israel, not Hezbullah or Iran, that wants a wider war. Agreed. So, what gives with his take on Syria? Turkish control of northern Syria severs its direct connection with Iran, which, in turn, affects Hezbullah.

Texas Progressives talk Speaker drama and more

SocraticGadfly talks about Dade Phelan and Dustin Burrows.

Whoever the new Speaker is, whether Burrows, GOP caucus guy David Cook, or some better never-Patrick GOP alternative to Burrows, the sense of Legiscritters, or at least ones that blathered to the Tribune along with various lobbying types, is that vouchers will be a done deal. (It appears nobody from TASB was at the event.)

Gene Wu replaced Trey Martinez Fisher as leader of Texas House Dems. So far, he's been less than perfect, though not godawful, on the GOP side of the Speaker battle.

Off the Kuff shared a couple of thoughts about where to go from here.

Dannie Goeb wants to ban THC products and it's high on his priorities list.

This one is nothing new to me — I wrote back in 2006 about Rick Perry's "economic miracle" and noted that it was based on two things: oil and Ill Eagles. The state had data about the economic benefits of illegal immigrants then and hasn't updated it — because Strangeabbott et al know they can't refudiate it.

Biden did an el foldo to Paxton on confidentiality for teen birth control meds.

Blocking social media accounts on school district WiFi, as is generally already done? Good thing. Blocking minors from starting accounts in the first place, even if they have parental consent? Unconstitutional as I see it. Shock me that Rethuglicans are pushing it here in Tex-ass. It has parallels to blocking medications for transgender and / or transsexual minors even if they have parental consent.

The Observer gets the real names behind four neo-Nazi accounts on Shitter. 

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy: Nick Fuentes arrested on battery charge.

Reform Austin leans into their discontent.

The Eyewall reviews the 2024 hurricane forecasts. 

Law Dork looks to the trans representation at the SCOTUS hearing on gender affirming care.

Uranium mining is heating back up in south Texas. I never knew it was much of a deal there.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project posted on the Houston Planning Commission stalling the silly & selfish revision process of Houston’s sidewalk ordinance.

Texas statewide media news sites get more incestuous. The Monthly ran the Trib's piece about Phelan bailing out. And now, the Barbed Wire, the new kid, is running stuff from Steven Monacelli, who normally is at the Observer.

FDA could abolish Red Dye No. 3

Good if this happens!

First, the petition to make this happen does NOT appear to be related to Brainworm Bobby's nomination by Trump to head Health and Human Services.

Second, there are good reasons for this to happen.

Like this:

“With the holiday season in full swing where sweet treats are abundant, it is frightening that this chemical remains hidden in these foods that we and our children are eating,” US Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), a ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote in a letter to the FDA.

“While food companies must ensure that the food they market is safe, they are also only required to ensure that their products meet FDA’s standards. This means that thousands of products that contain this chemical can remain on the market.”

He argued that there is “no reason” for the additive to be in food “except to entice and mislead customers” to make products appear “more appealing.

And this:

Thomas Galligan, who works at the Center for Science in the Public Interest as a principal scientist for food additives and supplements, echoed a similar sentiment.

“These food dyes only serve one function in food, to make them look pretty so you and I want to buy it, it’s a marketing tool,” he told NBC.

"Make it so."

As the piece notes, it was banned from cosmetics in 1990. It's banned in California in foods right now.

Trump schwaffles on tariffs and more

The AP offers a summary of his Sunday appearance on NBC's Meet the Press.

On tariffs, he won't guarantee that they won't lead to price hikes. Nor will he offer any consumer consolation if they do.

His comments on immigration and families of both legal and Ill Eagle people sounds incredibly stupid even for him:

But Trump also said he does not “want to be breaking up families” of mixed legal status, “so the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

Whoever cut him off at the pass on tariffs presumably failed to do so here.

This all has little meaning if he strokes out before his term ends.

Texas House committee to subpoena Roberson again

It's supposed to happen today, unless Kenny Boy Paxton stops blocking access to the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee having Robert Roberson talk to them in person about the state's junk science law, how it apparently has not been followed in his case and more.

The committee worries Paxton is stalling them out until a new year, a new Lege and a new committee.

Given that Kenny Boy went from saying "do a video" to "can't see him," of course we know he's stalling. And, re a new committee, we don't know how presumed new Speaker David Cook (not you, Dustin) will handle this, or what his take is on the junk science law. We do know that current chair Joe Moody is a Democrat.

We also, per the story of the committee's original subpoena and its legal playout, don't know how the three new members of the CCA stand on this issue.

Dustin Burrows claims he can be Texas Speaker of the House

OK, even for Tex-ass politics, things are getting weird. 

Current Speaker McDade "Dade" Phelan bailed out of seeking re-election yesterday. As part of that, I noted that Dustin Burrows of Dennis Bonnen/Mucus tape fame had filed for the spot, as well as David Cook, the unified Republican challenger to Phelan.

I also noted my thoughts that, because of that and his "Death Star" bill in 2023, Burrows probably couldn't get more than two-thirds of House Dems to support him.

I also said new House Dem caucus leader Gene Wu should have canvassed his members and dropped Burrows some numbers before the GOP caucus meeting earlier today. He probably didn't.

It probably wouldn't have mattered.

After previous rounds of voting today, most of Burrows supporters bailed, leaving Cook with a 48-14 advantage in the GOP caucus.

Now, the Trib piece gets something half-wrong if not full wrong. The "binding" nature of the GOP caucus vote is only if one candidate breaks 60 percent, and 48 is not 60 percent of 88. Or, will Cook's supporters claim that 48 is well more than 60 percent of 62? That said, shock me that Jasper Scherer is one of the three-headed beast reporting this for the Trib. Both he and Barragán have gotten shit wrong before. See here and here for examples of Scherer's previous craptacularness.

Now, it gets weirder. After the "bolting," this:

“The speaker's race is over,” he said in a news conference that lasted less than two minutes. “I have secured enough to be speaker of the House for the next session.”

Yeah, right. Sure.

No, he has now said "sure," and has counted to 76 with a public list of names. 

(Update: Per this and this by Scott Braddock, that may be 67 not 76; as many as, but not guaranteed at that number, as many as 8 Rethugs, and one Democrap for sure, have asked Burrows to pull their names. Burrows didn't help himself by including names already on Cook's list.)

Interesting, we know for sure two House Dems have already repudiated you. In addition, per Braddock, he has promised no vouchers and no end to taxpayer funded "lobbying" (TML etc), but has said no Dem chairs for committees. Given the no lobbying would be a big flip-flop per the Mucus tape, why would they trust you? Apparently you found enough to do so for now, at least. And, Gene Wu failed to promote a third option. Maybe he couldn't have. But, did he even try?

That said, a new follower on Shitter did my count for me. There's just 38 Dems on that list, or 37 with the Braddock update. That's less than 2/3, as I predicted yesterday.

Second — was it necessary for these Democrats to publicly commit, rather than per Tricky Dick Nixon with Clarence Kelley, letting Burrows "twist slowly" for a while?

Third — it seems like Gene Wu doesn't have much control over House Dems yet, if he couldn't persuade more of them not to publicly commit to Burrows for strategery reasons and to be more skeptical in general. (That said, we'll see if more ask to have their names removed.)

Fourth — where does this leave Ana-María Ramos? Well, per an updated version of the Trib story (the "leaving Cook" link up top), and this also ties to point three, some House Dems tried to line up an official endorsement but failed, and Wu released everybody to say whatever. Ramos fired away at the 30-something suckers:

"Supporting a speaker who is not backed by his own party's majority and and who seeks to appeal to Democrats by defending indefensible policies- policies that have allowed children to be slaughtered in schools, women to die without access to healthcare and public schools to close - repeats 25 years of submission to a leadership that has completely failed Texas families," Ramos told The Texas Tribune.

Frankly, yeah, Texas Dems are better living in the wilderness for two years, probably. That said? How many are comfortable if that two years becomes six? Or 12?

Fifth — where does this leave Burrows, per the Braddock updates? I joked on Twitter that he either had numerical dyslexia in confusing 67 and 76, or else told another whopper. And, as a political leader? Nobody wants a Speaker who either can't count or lies about a count.

Sixth — as for claims Burrows and other dissenters can be censured, or even kept off a ballot? If I'm reading correctly, today's vote approving censures happened after the last ballot and the dissenters left. While the state constitution doesn't apply, it it nonetheless in the general sense an ex post facto resolution. As for keeping anybody off a primary ballot? The Republican Party of Texas can do that; the House GOP caucus can't. And, the house GOP caucus' post-vote resolution? "Censurable" is used once; "censure" not at all. The former is used only for House Republicans pushing for a secret ballot for the Speaker's election, contra a MAGAts-type liar on Reddit. (Without going to check, I'm sure other bullshit is coming from the Luke Maciases of the world.)

Seventh — Wes Virdell is claiming that all 88 GOP caucus members agreed at the start to support whoever got a majority. But, given he's a rep-elect, not a rep, his comment should probably be discounted right there.

And, that's not the only possible lying that may be coming from the non-Burrows side. Per an updated version of the Trib piece at top:

Burrows’ camp then requested a break to discuss their strategy before the third round. They said they were denied and abruptly left the meeting, throwing the proceedings into a scramble. However, Cook’s side said Burrows’ group left before the caucus had finished deciding whether to pause the action.

This is going to get nasty. If Cook gets the speakership, will he become a junior Dannie Goeb?

Eighth — back to Tex-ass Dems. Did the 37 (is that correct? who knows?) who said yes to Burrows do so without checking his list of names on the GOP side?