Stein is the first to remind us of Hillary Clinton's complicity in the 2009 Honduran coup, and subsequent reign of terror there—while she abets the dramatically greater state terror of the Assad regime. This amounts to cynical exploitation of the Hondurans for propaganda.

And the difference is that Clinton can actually defeat Trump. All Stein can do is abet his victory by being a splitter. And Stein's actual politics are no better than Clinton's. The Green Party is no alternative to the Democrats. It is every bit as morally bankrupt.

Beyond belief. It emerges that Jill Stein's running mate Ajamu Baraka is a contributor to a conspiranoid anthology with the unseemly title of Another French False Flag: Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernardino. ("From the folks who brought you We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo! Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11.") Other contributors include Reagan admin vet Paul Craig Roberts and notorious Jew-hater Gilad Atzmon.

Here's a rad idea. Do you think when there is a ghastly terror attack somewhere, leftists in the West should try to identify and support progressive forces on the ground mobilizing in response.... as opposed to making up wacky conspiracy theories that merely exploit the victims for propaganda?

Down with the reactionary Green Party.

The (ever-problematic) MondoWeiss runs an embarsssingly uncritical interview with Ajamu Baraka in which he again portrays the Syrian Revolution as Western-created astroturf: "What we see in Syria is another example of destabilization and war imposed on the state simply in order to attempt to clean up the previous mistakes that the US and the Western states made when they decided to destroy the Iraqi state."

Muftah meanwhile runs a critique of the Green Party position on Syria which includes a quote from Jill Stein in which she explicitly called for supporting a reconsolidation of Assad rule throughout the country: 

Stein issued a foolish statement on November 2, 2015, opposing American ground troops in Syria and accusing President Barack Obama of trying to engineer "regime change" in the country. In her statement, she urged the U.S. government to work with Syria, Russia, and Iran "to restore all of Syria to control by the government rather than Jihadi rebels."

However, note that the link back to the original source—a page on the Jill2016 website—now comes up as: "The page you were looking for was not found." It appears that, once again, Jill thought better of her abject dictator-shilling after the fact and attempted to purge it from the web...

It seems the Jill2016 page has finally issued a public position on Syria. Here is the text, with propaganda words in bold, followed by our critique:

The situation in Syria is complicated and disastrous, with an all out civil war in Syria, and a proxy war among many powers seeking influence in the region. US pursuit of regime change in Libya and Iraq created the chaos that promotes power grabs by extremist militias. Many of the weapons we are sending into Syria to arm anti-government militias end up in the hands of ISIS. In Syria it’s extremely difficult to sort out this complicated web of resistance fighters, religious extremists and warlords with backing from regional and world powers.

The one thing that is clear is that US meddling in the Middle East is throwing fuel on the fire.

I call for principled collaboration in bringing a weapons embargo to the region, freezing the bank accounts of countries that continue to fund terrorist groups, promoting a ceasefire, and supporting inclusive peace talks. The region is extremely complicated.

The best thing we can do for Syria, the Middle East and the world is to de-escalate this conflict, and involve as many of the players as we can in that de-escalation.

The word "complicated" is always invoked by those who seek the comfort of neutrality in the face of aggression. We have had to call out Richard Falk and Phyllis Bennis for identical equivocation. You would never hear either of them using that word about, say, Palestine. But in Stein's case it is even worse, because she is actually on the side of the genocidal regime in Syria.

While the Great Powers are indeed attempting to cultivate proxies in Syria, the term "proxy war" is found offensive by Syrians, as it implies they are not autonomous actors. Stein gives us the condescending "proxy war" line—but not a syllable about solidarity with the democratic forces in Syria.

One again, "regime change" is invoked as a Washington design and not the demand of the Syrian people. The Syrian Revolution began under the Arab Spring slogan: "The people want the downfall of the regime!" And "progressives" (sic) in the West act as if any call for "regime change" is a sinister neocon plot. Why is the American "left" today so suspicious of revolution?

"Libya and Iraq" are conflated, as if they were the same situation. There was no revolution going on in Iraq when the US invaded in 2003. And the US never invaded Libya—just backed up the revolutionary forces with air-strikes, as the third leg of an alliance with France and the UK. To blame the chaos in Libya on "US pursuit of regime change"—rather than the suppression of civil society by 40 years of Qaddafi rule, finally resulting in a social explosion—is sheer imperial narcissism.

"Many of the weapons we are sending into Syria to arm anti-government militias end up in the hands of ISIS." Oh? May we please see some evidence of this? We'll be waiting, Jill. Certainly, not arming the democratic forces fighting ISIS would be far more of a boon to ISIS. So this assertion is both a lie and patently illogical.

Second use of dishonest word "complicated."

So the "one thing that is clear" is the destructive role of the US—not the genocide being carried out by the Assad regime with Russian support, or the continued desperate resistance of Syria's democratic forces. Sickening.

Jill calls for "freezing the bank accounts of countries that continue to fund terrorist groups." Yet On The Issues notes she wants to "Stop economic sanctions...against Iran"—the country backing the biggest terrorist in Syria, Bashar Assad. Which is it, Jill?

What does the feel-good term "inclusive peace talks" mean? Including the genocidal Assad regime? By implication, yes—but not ISIS, of course. Despite the fact that Assad has killed far more Syrians than ISIS.

Same thing for "involve as many of the players as we can." This is merely a reiteration of her pro-Assad position as articulated in her scrubbed comment noted above—but with greater subtlety and less honesty. Don't fall for it.