Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Hillary lovers attack the press


BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


DAVID BROCK'S BOY TOY ERIC BOEHLERT IS SCREAMING FOR A FIRING.

WHY?

BECAUSE THE TOY HOOKER WANTS TO SILENCE CRITICISM OF HILLARY CLINTON.

THE NEW YORK TIMES REALLY DID NOT GET A STORY WRONG (THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED TONIGHT AT THE COMMON ILLS IN FULL -- IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW IN "You've got some really strange and creepy heroes" AND "Mediaite's Posse Don't Do Media Criticism") -- BUT THE PAPER DID A STORY THAT DAVID BROCK AND HIS HANG DOWN ERIC BOEHLERT DID NOT LIKE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT GLOWING PRAISE OF CRANKY CLINTON.

SO THEY'RE SCREAMING FOR A FIRING SO THAT THEY CAN HANG A CORPSE AND SCARE ALL THE OTHER JOURNALISTS AWAY.

THEY ARE FASCISTS AND THEY ARE LIARS.

NEVER FORGET THAT DAVID BROCK -- DRUG ADDICT AND PROSTITUTE USER -- CAME TO FAME BY LYING ABOUT ANITA HILL TO PROTECT CLARENCE THOMAS.

THAT'S ALL DAVID BROCK KNOWS HOW TO DO: LIE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:





Moving from the Congress to those who want to be president, the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee will be decided by voters in early to mid 2016.  The declared candidates so far are (in alphabetical order): Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Robby Wells and Willie Wilson.


CNN notes of one, "Chafee has struggled to make much traction in the Democratic presidential race. A recent CNN/ORC Poll showed less than 1 percent of democrats surveyed backed Chafee, compared to 57 percent for Clinton."

Chafee was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the authorization for the Iraq War in 2002.  He then became an independent and is now a Democrat.  Chafee is stressing his vote with regards to press favorite Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq War.  David Cook (Christian Science Monitor) covers a Christian Science Monitor breakfast and neglects to record the menu but does note that Chafee stressed the 2002 Iraq War vote:

"I did my homework, I looked carefully to see if there were weapons of mass destruction. I didn't see it," he said. Clinton has said since that her Iraq War vote was a mistake. 
When asked about polls showing voter concerns about Clinton’s honesty and credibility, Chafee said she had suffered “a lot of self-inflicted wounds, unfortunately.” But, he added, after the primary season is over, he and the other Democratic candidates would “certainly unite as Democrats to win in 2016.”


Jonathan Easley (The Hill) also covers Chafee's breakfast remarks and includes this:

“I have a lot of work to do,” Chafee said. “The reality is that secretary Clinton has a huge head start with endorsements and money and the rest of us are scrambling. But I think I have the vision, ethical standards and ideas. There’s still more to be don on fundraising and organization, but it doesn’t discount what I bring to the table.”



Hillary, of course, refuses to discuss Iraq.

She pretends a brief aside in her ghost written book from 2014 'addressed' and 'ended' the issue.  David Lightman (McClatchy Newspapers) reminds:

Clinton said last year she regretted her vote. “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple,” she said in her book, “Hard Choices.”




Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article29110669.html#storylink=cpy


And she does that to the idiotic raves of Maggie Haberman, the New York Times reporter or 'reporter' who is making a career this year of minimizing and justifying Hillary's actions.

Haberman's coverage -- including her Tweets -- border on soft core porn -- you picture her as Brian De Palma's camera for the locker room scene in Carrie before Sissy Spacek gets her period -- was of course ignored by David Brock and other partisan hacks and whores last week as they rushed to insist the New York Times was always unfair to their  crush.



Possibly due to the way the Iraq War vote continues to haunt her, Hillary appears unable to take firm positions today.  Akilah Johnson (Boston Globe) reports on the town hall Hillary held today:


Bruce Blodgett, a software developer and conservative from Amherst, asked for a "yes or no" answer to whether Clinton "as president" would support the proposed pipeline -- an $8 billion project abhorred by environmentalists -- that would transport oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.
Clinton sidestepped the question, saying: "This is President Obama's decision. If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question."


Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny (CNN) report Blodgett's reaction to Hillary's response, "I thought she avoided the question completely. Her excuse was she didn't want to step on President Obama while he was still in office.  I just thought that was a very weak answer. I just wanted to know where she stands on it one way or another."

Nancy Pelosi infamously argued that the Congress had to first pass ObamaCare to then figure out what ObamaCare would do ("We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it").  Hillary's taking that even further.  You have to first vote her president and then, after she's in office, she'll decide where she stands on an issue.

This refusal to press a candidate who goes around repeatedly saying "when I become president" is appalling.

She needs to be asked about Iraq repeatedly.

The Iraq War continues to this day.

She helped kick it off with her 2002 vote and her championing of the illegal war once it started.

She only (semi) turned on it after the public had.

US troops are being sent back into Iraq in a steady drip today.  US pilots fly combat missions over Iraq today.  The Iraqi government, instead of coming up with a political solution to the country's problems, remains in gridlock.

Exactly how does Hillary plan to address any of this if elected president?

Hillary and her cult -- which includes the Times' Maggie Haberman -- are perfectly happy to take the position that Hillary doesn't have to answer to any of that unless "it's undecided when I become president."

Meanwhile, last week Ben Jacobs (Guardian) reported:


In Iowa on Thursday, in response to a question from the Guardian about whether the White House should take further steps towards arming Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq, the former Maryland governor and 2016 Democratic candidate said: “Probably, yes.”
The Obama administration has long hesitated over directly arming Kurdish militias in the north of Iraq, for fear of further aggravating sectarian tensions.
[. . .]

Doug Wilson, a top foreign policy adviser to O’Malley, made clear that the candidate “was not unilaterally proposing that we step up additional arms to the Kurds”. Instead, Wilson said, O’Malley would only do so “if it was determined by the US military that it was appropriate to up the arms to the Kurds”.


Where does Hillary stand on that question?

Oh, that's right, Maggie Haberman thinks Hillary said all she needs to via that ghost-written 2014 book.




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Isakson Pays Tribute to Georgia Marine Slain in Ch..."
"US government supports child soldiers in Iraq"
"Tom Brady"
"The Wiz"
"Why is Barack in Kenya?"
"Does it ever end?"
"Ant Man"
"third term barack?"
"I don't like fear tactics"
"Hillary doesn't know where she stands"
"Investigate Hillary's e-mails"
"John Kerry: Aging Drama Queen"
"THIS JUST IN! THAT AND THE VOTERS!"
"He forgot the voters (again)"








Tuesday, July 28, 2015

He forgot the voters (again)

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


THE ONLY THING, HE INSISTED, BARRING HIM WAS THE CONSTITUTION.

YEAH THAT.

AND THE AMERICANS WHO WOULD RAIL AGAINST ANY POMPOUS PRICK WHO THOUGHT HE COULD RUN FOR A THIRD TERM.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:




We devoted Saturday's snapshot to the Turkish government's efforts to use war against the Islamic State as a pretext to bomb northern Iraq in the supposed effort to defeat the PKK -- a group that they had entered into an armistice with.

The United States government appears to have given a nod of approval on the attacks in exchange for the right to use Turkish air bases.  Tian Shaohui (Xinhua) observes, "Critics, including opposition politicians, have accused President Tayyip Erdogan of trying to use the campaign against the Islamic State as an excuse to crack down on Kurds."




Patrick Cockburn (the Independent) observes:


The result is that the US may find it has helped to destabilise Turkey by involving it in the war in both Iraq and Syria, yet without coming much closer to defeating Isis in either country. If so, America will have committed its biggest mistake in the Middle East since it invaded Iraq in 2003, believing it could overthrow Saddam Hussein and replace him with a pro-American government. 



At today's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson John Kirby attempted to spin what is taking place.




QUESTION: Can we start with – not the trip, although – you have any questions – about the – what’s going on right now with the Turks? And it seems like a really bizarre situation has unfolded over the course of the past week with them joining the air strikes against ISIS, but at the same time also bombing PKK positions. And there’s been some pushback on the suggestion – I noticed that Brett McGurk tweeted about it – that these are related, and that the United States – he saying that there was no deal done with the Turks, in other words. A lot of people find that really hard to believe. So what exactly is going on here, and doesn’t this just make an even bigger mess out of the situation then you had originally?


MR KIRBY: I think – so let’s unpack. There’s an awful lot there, so let’s just unpack that. I don’t think that I could say it any better than Ambassador McGurk did. We are grateful for Turkey’s cooperation against ISIL to include now use of some of their bases for coalition aircraft to go against targets – ISIL targets, particularly in Syria. So we’re grateful for that support. The – so separate and distinct from that, Turkey has continued to come under attack by PKK terrorists, and we recognize their right to defend themselves against those attacks. And it was in retaliation for recent attacks by the PKK that Turkey conducted these most recent strikes.
As for ISIL in Syria, we continue to discuss with Turkey ways at which we can go after this particular threat. Again, we value their cooperation thus far. They have a vested interest, obviously, because of its – it’s their border. And while there’s nothing new to announce with respect to what kind of cooperation may come in the future, we’re going to continue to talk to them about that.
I understand the coincidence of all of this, but it is just that. The attacks against the PKK were in retaliations for attacks they, the Turks, endured, and what they’re doing against ISIL in Syria I’ll let them speak to. But obviously, we welcome all coalition members’ efforts against ISIL, particularly in Syria.


QUESTION: All right, well, one: Are you suggesting then that the Turks – the attacks on the PKK are going to – are over now and that the Turks have retaliated enough for the attacks on them? And secondly, are you not concerned that these attacks, while they are directed against a group that you have designated a terrorist organization – the Turks certainly believe are a terrorist organization – and I’m talking about the PKK – are you not concerned that that is going to hinder or hurt the fight against ISIS/ISIL?


MR KIRBY: I understand the second one. Am I concerned that their attacks against the PKK will detract from the fight against ISIL? Is that --


QUESTION: Yeah. They’re killing people that are killing ISIL.


MR KIRBY: The attacks against the PKK.


QUESTION: Yes.


MR KIRBY: Okay.


QUESTION: Right? I mean, am I wrong?


QUESTION: I mean, the PKK has been very effective against ISIL. They helped rescue Yezidis on Mount Sinjar. They’ve been fighting ISIS in Syria --


MR KIRBY: Yeah. No. I think I got it.


QUESTION: So there’s two in there.


MR KIRBY: Is it over now?


QUESTION: Have you been assured – or have you been told by the Turks that they’re – that this against the – the strikes against the PKK are limited duration and solely in retaliation for the attacks on them, and are going to stop?


MR KIRBY: Right.


QUESTION: And secondly, I mean, how does this not make it a big – it’s – how does this not hurt the fight against ISIS/ISIL?


MR KIRBY: Okay, so two questions. First of all, is it over now? I don’t know. That’s a question that you have to ask Turkish officials. They retaliated against the PKK for strikes that they received from PKK terrorists. We have long recognized the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization, and we recognize Turkey’s ability – or, I’m sorry, Turkey’s right – to defend itself against this group. So is it over now? I don’t know. And that’s really not a question that we can answer from this podium.
Two, does it hinder the fight against ISIL? What we’re trying to focus on here is a coalition to go after ISIL, counter ISIL. I recognize that, in some cases, the PKK have fought against ISIL. But they are a foreign terrorist organization. We designated them that, as an FTO. And our fight against ISIL is not in cooperation with, coordination with, or communication with the PKK. Our fight against ISIL is with 62 other nations in this coalition who are helping us go after these guys, and in Syria specifically. And again, DOD is working a train and equip program to get a moderate opposition capable enough to go after ISIL inside Syria.
So the fight against ISIL will continue. We are grateful for the contributions of Turkey and other coalition members. And the pressure that we are going to put on them, regardless of what Turkey is doing against the PKK or will do in the future, that’s not going to diminish.


Turkey's right to defend itself?

Kirby's just another flapping gum US official who has no interest in helping Iraq or what happens to Iraq.

Turkey is bombing northern Iraq.

John Kirby can dress that up in all the endless words he wants but that's what's happening.

And we remember what happened last time -- it outraged the Iraqi people.

That was then.

Today?

Not so different.


National Iraqi News Agency reports:

The Vice President of the House of Representatives, Aram Sheikh Mohammed condemned the Turkish indiscriminate shelling on border areas in the Kurdistan region, stressing that the security of Turkey does not take place through the bypassing and breach Iraqi sovereignty and killing innocent civilians and burning and damaging farms without any justification.

He called on Ankara, in a statement today, not to fail the peace process in Turkey, saying unfortunately the Turkish government again deliberately violated Iraqi sovereignty and bombed Iraqi territory under the pretext of keeping its security and began random and intensified aerial bombardment on the border areas in the Kurdistan region, and as a result of this bombing, a number of innocent citizens were killed and this heinous and provocative act is unacceptable and we condemn that strongly



And NINA reports:


MP, of the Iraqi Forces Coalition, Dhafer al-Ani called on Turkey to open a dialogue with the federal government and coordinate with the Ministry of Defence on the subject of bombing PKK's positions.

Al-Ani said in a statement that there is no doubt that the security of Turkish and its friendly people and its stability concerns us and we are keen on its security and stability as we concern about ours and peace in all countries around us, and it is essential that there should be a regional security effort to hunt down terrorist organizations that infiltrate between the border, but this effort has to be conditional within the official coordination.

He added that the justifications provided by Turkish officials about their understandings with the Kurdistan Regional Government on the entry of their jets into Iraqi airspace and carry out military strikes to armed groups inside Iraqi territory are not sufficient justifications, as we were waiting for understandings with Baghdad government and coordination with the Ministry of Defense in accordance with the known official formats in order to preserve national sovereignty



Please note that Kirby could talk endlessly of Turkey's right to do whatever the hell it wanted but he seemed to think Iraq had no right to object to another country bombing it.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: The minimizers and the abusers"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Study in Hypoc..."
"Hejira"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"
"Barack's biggest disappointment"





 

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Make sure it's a landline call

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


CRANKY CLINTON IS READY FOR THE 3  A.M. PHONE CALL.

IT'S JUST THE 3:30 P.M. E-MAIL SHE HAS TROUBLE WITH.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


DEBAKA reports:

The Middle East woke up Friday, July 24, to two new full-fledged wars launched by Jordan and Turkey for cutting down the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as is forces advanced on their borders. The United States and Israel are involved in both campaigns. Jordanian armored, commando and air forces are already operating deep inside Iraq, while Friday morning, Turkey conducted its first cross-border air strike against ISIS targets in Syria. Clashes between Turkish troops and Islamic fighters erupted at several points along the border. Both governments also conducted mass arrests of suspected Islamists. The Jordanian police picked up ISIS adherents, while 5,000 Turkish police detained 250 Islamist and outlawed Kurdish PKK suspects in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and Saniurta. Jordan Friday shut down its only border crossing with Iraq.


But Turkey's not trying to cut down the Islamic State with these attacks.

It's using the threat or 'threat' of the Islamic State to advance their own interests which is to yet again re-start the war between Turkey and the PKK -- Kurdish fighters who have fought for an independent Kurdish homeland (fought via armed violence) for decades now, since 1984.

Contanze Letsch (Guardian) points out:




Turkey launched overnight airstrikes against several positions of the outlawed Kurdistan Worker’s party (PKK) in northern Iraq for the first time in four years, the country’s government has said.
The air raids put an end to a two-year ceasefire between the Turkish government and the PKK, severely endangering the already fragile peace process started in 2012 in an attempt to end a bloody conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people over 30 years.



ITV adds, "The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has said its 2013 truce with Turkey 'has no meaning anymore'."  AP explains, "The strikes in Iraq targeted the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, whose affiliates have been effective in battling the Islamic State group. The strikes further complicate the U.S.-led war against the extremists, which has relied on Kurdish ground forces making gains in Iraq and Syria."  Zia Weise and Chris Stevenson (Independent) note the shift in their report which includes:



“With the bombardment, Turkey has ended the ceasefire,” said Zagros Hiwa, a spokesman for the PKK and the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) based in the Qandil mountains, told The Independent on Sunday. “It ended the ceasefire and it ended the peace process unilaterally. From now on, we will continue our struggle against all odds.”


The action of the Turkish government should be immediately and universally called out.

This is not helping anything.

The Turkish government -- probably like many others -- is using the pretext of the Islamic State to attack Iraq.

In doing so, it is violating Iraq's sovereignty yet again.

This didn't work out well before, for any who paid attention.

The Turkish warplanes, announcements swore, killed 'terrorists.'  Reality, they bombed farming communities and killed civilians.

This didn't endear them to the Iraqi people.

There was outrage, naturally.

Now the Turkish government uses the threat or 'threat' of the Islamic State to overturn a peace initiative that they clearly never supported and were only waiting for the first chance to void.

In terms of Turkey, this means the PKK is now engaged in war with them which will mean on the outskirts of Turkey as well as inside.

This was a stupid decision by the Turkish government.

The question right now is whether or not the White House approved this assault.

Did the White House know about it and is that why there's been no major public condemnation of the assaults on northern Iraq from the White House?


The best they can offer, as the BBC notes, is a minor player with minor words:

US White House spokesman Alistair Baskey said Turkey had the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks by Kurdish rebels and urged the PKK to renounce terrorism.
But he said that Ankara should also avoid violence towards the PKK and seek to de-escalate the conflict.


Jacques Brinon (AP) notes that meek and weak wasn't the response in France where at least a thousand "Kurds and leftist Turks" took the streets of Paris to register their objections to Turkish warplanes bombing northern Iraq with banners decrying the action and some accusing the Turkish government of assisting the Islamic State.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Murray, Democrats Introduce Historic, Comprehensiv..."
"More conflict in Iraq"
"Ben Burgis why do you lie?"
"Welcome to the room, Swanson"
"Princess and President"
"Extant (Ethan)"
"EXtant"
"Beauty and the Beast"
"Like Igby, Hillary goes down"
"yet again, hillary can't stop lying"
"Did Hillary step in it or was she pushed?"
"Extant"
"When does Hillary drop out already?"
"2 of a kind"
"The War Hawk"
"Ever?"
"Rickie Lee Jones in San Francisco and Los Angeles"
"Killer in chief"
"Cher"
"Grading the field"
"Rickie Lee Jones talks to the CBC"
"Ricke Lee Jones LA show"
"Rickie Lee Jones talks to the CBC"
"THIS JUST IN! WILL THE JUSTICE DEPT COME A'COURTING?"
"Another scandal for Cranky"





Friday, July 24, 2015

Another scandal for Cranky

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


CRANKY CLINTON WAS HOPING INVESTIGATIONS INTO HER LIFE THIS GO ROUND WOULD GO NO DEEPER THAN TODD S. PURDHAM'S 2008 INVESTIGATION INTO A POSSIBLE 'BIMBO EXPLOSION' ONCE AGAIN INVOLVING HUSBAND BILL.

INSTEAD, CRANKY MAY BE UNDER FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AS TWO INSPECTORS GENERAL ARE CALLING ON THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO LAUNCH A FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO CRANKY'S USE OF HER PRIVATE E-MAIL ACCOUNT BECAUSE HER PURSE COULD ONLY ACCOMMODATE AN iPAD, A BLACKBERRY AND POSSIBLY A SMALL TRUCKLOAD OF ANTI-AGE CREAM.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I SURVIVED TRAVEL-GATE,  I WILL SURVIVE THIS AS WELL.  SCANDALS DON'T BRING ME DOWN, THEY ONLY BUILD ME UP!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



In the US, today could have been a very important day for veterans.  Instead, some members of Congress -- on the Republican side -- elected to play games and mess with veterans.

Senator Patty Murray has worked years to highlight a very serious problem for many veterans.  You are injured while serving.  Your injury may mean you and your spouse are unable to become pregnant.

Now if you're still active duty, if you're DoD and not under the VA, the government will cover efforts at in vitro fertilization.

But if you're VA?  No.


This isn't fair.

And Murray has led the fight for equality and the fight to see that veterans have the same rights and opportunities as anyone else.


Today, she pulled her bill because some members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (on the Republican side) attempted to turn a veterans issue into something else, a vote on Planned Parenthood, abortion and other issues that had nothing to do with helping wounded veterans start families.

Patricia Kim (Military Times) reports:

Murray called the amendments a "partisan attack on women's health," and said her bill, which passed the Senate in 2012 but failed in the House over funding concerns, would have ensured that the nation is doing "everything we can to support veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country."
"I am so disappointed — and truly angry that Republicans on the Veterans Affairs Committee decided yesterday to leap at the opportunity to pander to their base, to poison the well with the political cable news battle of the day, and turn their backs on wounded veterans," she said.
Tillis said the amendments were not intended "to kill in vitro fertilization." Rather, he said he has concerns about veterans who are waiting to receive medical care or are being denied care, including some of his constituents who have diseases related to exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
"At some point, it may make sense to add another half a billion dollars for this medical treatment that's been proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but not until we're absolutely certain that the promises we've already made going to be fulfilled," said Tillis, a freshman congressman.



Oh, it's not worth money to help an injured veteran start a family?

The Camp Lejeune issue?

You want to block a nominee over that?

I'll support you, I'll defend you.  I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, I will support you.

And I have.

I've supported Senator Richard Burr on this issue.  I've defended him here for blocking a nominee or a bill because of this issue.

But I can't support using Camp Lejeune as an excuse for denying other veterans and their families in need.

I can't support.

I can't defend it.

I think it's outrageous and I'm deeply, deeply disappointed in Tillis who I have had favorable impressions of as a result of recent Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearings.

He and others chose to play politics instead of standing up for veterans.

If he can't stand up for veterans, he really doesn't need to be on the Committee.

That's something only he can decide.

And I'm not calling for him to be ejected.

But this move wasn't about what was best for veterans.




RECOMMNEDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isakson Announces Committee Vote on VA Accountabil..."
"Bombings in (and on) Falluja, Odierno speaks"
"Short Circuit"
"Gone in 60 Seconds"
"Swordfish"
"Harper"
"Salt"
"Sparkle"
"Star Wars"
"the wizard of oz"
"Grease"
"Dr Goldfoot"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S CRASHING!"
"Once it was alright (Farmer Joe)"




  • Wednesday, July 22, 2015

    Once it was alright (Farmer Joe)

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

    CRANKY CLINTON IS LOSING IN A NEW POLL WHICH FINDS HER TRAILING NOT 1 BUT 3 POTENTIAL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED THE POLL WAS MEANINGLESS AND "AFTER ALL, I'LL BE CONTROLLING THE VOTING MACHINES SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATER WHO'S IN THE LEAD OR NOT."



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    In the latest episode of The Real Bitches of DC, Barack Obama addressed the VFW and insisted that those objecting to his precious Iran deal were the same ones who supported the Iraq War.

    Really?

    Because Jim Webb has serious questions about the deal and I thought he was among those calling out the Iraq War.







    1. Obama says those who oppose the Iran deal were the ones in favor of the Iraq war. So does that mean Kerry is conflicted about the Iran deal?


  • Along with the factual problems with Barack's claims, there's also the sheer bitchiness of it.

    Is Barack one of the ones wrong?




    Because he can lie to a lot of stupid people and he can get a lot of whores to go along with him but I will always remember his support for the war in his statements to Elaine and I when he was running for the US Senate.


    You can ride high atop your pony
    I know you won't fall. . . 
    'cause the whole thing's phoney.
    You can fly swingin' from your trapeze
    Scaring all the people . . . 
    but you never scare me 
    -- "Bella Donna," written by Stevie Nicks, first appears on her album of the same name.


    Again, there are a lot of stupid people and he can easily fool them.

    But the reality is, as Bill Clinton so expertly put it, Barack's opposition to the Iraq War was always as "fairy tale."

    It's no way to sell a policy so most of will laugh at him as he yet again acts the littlest bitch in the world.

    What it mainly does is remind people that Barack's promoting a high risk, low yield treaty.

    Reminds them of how desperate he is.

    But it also serves to harden divisions and lines in this country -- remember when Barack was going to erase those?

    He was going to leave behind the cultural wars and the "Tom Hayden Democrats."

    But all the can do is bring out the bitchery.

    That's what happens when the Hopium has run out completely and the great leader stands before the country exposed as the fraud he always was.

    What else was Barack going to do in 2015, standing before the VFW but show his ass?

    Did you think he was going to talk about veterans homelessness?

    He promised, remember, to end that by the end of 2015.

    Which would be this year.

    This year which has five more months in it.

    Haven't heard anything on that, have you?

    Because it doesn't appear the deadline will be met.

    Well at least he could brag about reducing wait time for veterans at the VA, right?

    We remember that VA scandal, right?

    Christina Littlefield (Los Angeles Times) jogged memories yesterday as she noted:


    Concerns over waiting times for care at VA hospitals erupted in April 2014 after whistle-blowers in Phoenix accused administrators of keeping a secret waiting list to hide delays in treatment -- delays that were so long, at least 18 veterans died before being seen.  Similar problems were found in facilities across the country, and the chief of the VA stepped down.


    Barack couldn't stand before the VFW and brag about fixing that problem because -- well, because he didn't.

    Just a few months ago (April 9th), David B. Caruso (AP) was reporting, "A year after Americans recoiled at revelations that sick veterans were getting sicker when languishing on waiting lists, VA statistics show that the number of patients facing long waits has not declined, even after Congress gave the department an extra $16.3 billion last summer to shorten waits for care.


    Well he's got to have something regarding veterans care to brag about, right?

    Wrong.





    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "F16s arrive as protests return to Iraq"
    "WSWS continues their coverage of Wesley Clark's remarks"
    "Rickie Lee Jones"
    "They need to be asked about Clark"
    "Somebody Killed Her Husband"
    "Paul Street on fake and shake Bernie Sanders"
    "This is someone to support?"
    "there's only 1 janet"
    "There is no economic recovery"
    "Who's supporting Bernie?"
    "The fake asses"
    "THIS JUST IN! THEY'LL ALWAYS HAVE BASIC CABLE!"
    "One last roll in the hay"


  • Tuesday, July 21, 2015

    One last roll in the hay

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


    CHARLIZE THERON MAY HAVE INVITED HIM TO A STRIP JOINT BUT FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O LIKES ROLLING WITH THE BOYS.

    AND HE'LL HAVE TIME TO ROLL AROUND ON THE FLOOR WITH JON STEWART ONE LAST TIME AND THE TWO WILL GET IN ONE LAST DRY HUMP BEFORE THE ONE-TIME COMEDIAN EXITS THE DAILY SHOW.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, NO LONGER FUNNY BOY JON TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I JUST LOVE HIM! I COME A LITTLE IN MY MOUTH EVERY TIME I THINK ABOUT HIM."


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    The whores never stop working it.

    So Amy Goodman must be very, very tired.

    June 22nd, she brought Jill Stein on.  Stein was the 2012 Green Party presidential candidate.  She ran a hideous campaign yet insists she deserves to be gifted with the party's 2016 nomination.

    This attitude has led to cries of White entitlement and charges that she's no different than the perception of Hillary Clinton -- that both women expect a coronation that will crown them the nominee.

    Goody let Jill prattle on about Bernie:


    DR. JILL STEIN: It’s wonderful, and I wish him well. I wish him the best. The difference is that my campaign will be there in the general. And Bernie has already announced that if he does not make it—and in the Democratic Party, we’ve seen wonderful efforts—Jesse Jackson, Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton—who had extremely vigorous, spirited, visionary campaigns. It’s very hard to beat the system inside of the Democratic Party. And, you know, when those efforts ended, that was the end. Ours will keep going, and it will continue into the general election. And when it’s over, we’re building a party that’s not going away.



    It's cute how White Jill Stein could name check one man after another but not the 2008 presidential nominee for the Green Party: Cynthia McKinney.

    Search in vain, in the last four years, for any praise or even acknowledgment of Cynthia McKinney from Stein.


    Jill's a Queen Bee -- as defined by Gloria Steinem, Queen Bees are women who present themselves as the exception and stand apart from other women, women who want to be the only woman in the room.


    Jill's also a liar.

    Her 'campaign'?


    She doesn't even have the nomination.


    Not only that, but two men declared before Jill, declared they were running for the Green Party's presidential nomination.

    Jill doesn't note them, Amy Goodman doesn't bring them on her show.

    It's funny, when the media shuts out candidates in the Democratic Party's primary, the Goody Whores hop on their Self Righteous Ponies and insist that things are unfair and that people are being wronged and that democracy is suffering.

    But when Goody Whore 'covers' the Green Party, she presents only one candidate and doesn't even mention the other two -- both of whom declared long before Jill did.

    As we love to point out, Amy Goodman loves to play Last Journalist Standing -- but it's just a hollow pose.

    At Third, on Sunday, we discussed the Green Party and noted the two candidates Amy refuses to in our "Roundtable:"



    C.I.: Okay, I need to jump in for a second here.  The media lies.  That includes whores like Amy Goodman who's devoted how much attention to Jill Stein?  Jill is not the Green Party presidential candidate for 2016 and who is won't be decided until 2016.  Most importantly, Kent Mesplay and Bill Kreml are running for the nomination and Darryl Cherney is considering it.  Point: The Goody Whore has failed to provide Kent or Bill -- two declared candidates -- time on her hideous program.  She has promoted Jill Stein as the Hillary of the Green Party, the anointed one who will be the candidate.  That is not reality and that is not journalism.  We don't accept from the mainstream we shouldn't accept from Amy Goodman's whorish beggar media.



    Ava: And for the record, Jill announced in June.  Kent and Bill who are not getting coverage from whores like Amy Goodman or so-called Green bloggers?  Kent announced in January that he was seeking the nomination and Bill announced in May.  But Goody Whore left them out while fawning over the ridiculous Jill Stein.  Democracy Now?  No, Amy Whore, democracy when?  She's such a whore.

    C.I.: And though Kent declared in January, Goody Whore has not noted him once this year -- and only noted him twice in 2008 when he was seeking the nomination -- and she's never noted Bill.



    Again, Amy Goodman's caught pretending to support democracy and reporting but lying to her audience and attempting to shape the outcome via her lies.

    There's nothing ethical about Amy Goodman.

    But then someone with ethics would never publish in Hustler magazine.

    And someone (again) seeking the presidential nomination of the Green Party should be able to talk Iraq.  She couldn't in 2012, could she?

    Even when Tim Arango (New York Times) reported at the end of September 2012 that Barack Obama had just sent a brigade of Special Ops into Iraq, Jill Stein couldn't talk Iraq.

    She can't talk it today either.


    The Green Party, the one she claims to represent, came out against the Iraq War before it started.  The party's position did not change after the Iraq War started.

    The Green Party has consistently opposed the Iraq War.

    This is from a May 2008 press release from the political party:


    Green Party leaders today compared the Green demand for an immediate end to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan to the pro-occupation positions of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

    Greens said that party members supported protests planned by International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) locals on the west coast on May 1, 2008.

    "Along with the election of Greens to Congress, actions like those planned by ILWU members are what we need to force the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan," said Rodger Jennings, Green candidate for the US House in Illinois (District 12) <http://www.rodgerjennings.org>. "The longshore workers intend to press Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to change their warhawk positions. Like the Green Party, the ILWU has opposed both of President Bush's wars from the beginning."

    The text of the ILWU's February 26, 2008 resolution can be read here <http://www.labournet.net/docks2/0802/ilwu1may1.htm>. The ILWU letter to the AFL-CIO can be read here <http://www.labournet.net/world/0802/ilwu1may2.html>.

    The Green Party of the United States has called for immediate troop withdrawal and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney for numerous crimes and abuses of power, including deception and manipulated intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Greens also favor a sharp reduction in the military budget, shifting funds over to health care, conservation programs, efforts to curb global warming, and other urgent needs.

    "While Democrats have retreated, our own Green presidential candidates -- Jesse Johnson, Cynthia McKinney, Kent Mesplay, and Kat Swift -- have aggressively promoted the Green Party's position on the wars and on impeachment," said Dr. Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee <http://www.gp.org/committees/intl>.

    Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to pull 'combat' troops, but would leave thousands of US military personnel and contractors, including mercenary security firms, in Iraq to prolong the illegal occupation. Republican John McCain would maintain the Bush policy that would extend the occupation for several generations, bankrupting America both morally and fiscally.

    On other war-related issues, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain agree (while Greens hold contrary positions):




    Hey look, Kent Mesplay -- he could (and did) speak out against the Iraq War.

    Still Amy Goodman can't even note that he is a candidate for the Green Party's 2016 presidential nomination or that he declared his candidacy in January and did so without a fawning interview on Goody Whore's Democracy Now.


    Jill Stein can't talk Iraq.

    Nor can she call for the US government to stop meddling in Iraq.

    She can't note that over a year ago (June 19, 2014), Barack publicly insisted the only answer to the crises in Iraq was a political solution but in the 15 months since his administration has only focused on bombing Iraq.

    She deserves the nomination, she believes, but she's done nothing to show that she can earn it.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Tall tales from the press?"
    "MSNBC"
    "Lock us all away?"
    "They're selling it again"
    "dull monday"
    "Iraq"
    "Wesley Clark calls for Americans to be imprisoned"
    "Cranky in trouble again"
    "Iraq"
    "Jill Stein, White entitlement"
    "Iraq"


    "Bernie Sanders misses 'the good old days'"
    "THIS JUST IN! BERNIE SANDERS ASKS THAT YOU KNOW YOUR PLACE!"










    Sunday, July 19, 2015

    Bernie Sanders misses 'the good old days'

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

    ELDERLY BERNIE SANDERS STUMBLED OFF HIS PLANTATION THE OTHER DAY AND WAS SHOCKED TO DISCOVER SOME 'UPPITY' FOLKS DIDN'T COTTON TO HIS WHITE PRIVILEGE AND HAD THE NERVE TO ACTUALLY CALL HIM, A WHITE MAN, OUT ON HIS REMARKS.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, SANDERS ELECTED TO SPEAK TO ONLY ONE OF THESE TWO REPORTERS ("I DON'T SPEAK TO NO DARKIES, SORRY, THAT'S JUST HOW I BE RAISED") AND THEN INSISTED, "I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY PERSON OF ANY RACE IF THAT PERSON KNOWS THEIR PLACE.  BACK IN MY DAY, PEOPLE KNEW THEIR PLACE.  AND CERTAIN PEOPLE KNEW THEY WERE BETTER AT, FOR EXAMPLE, FRYING CHICKEN OR SELLING WATERMELON WHILE NOT SO GOOD AT SPEAKING UP IN PUBLIC."



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    The United States needs to start paying attention and stop whoring.

    Whoring for Bully Boy Bush didn't help Iraq.

    Whoring for Barack Obama doesn't help Iraq.

    Take your mouth off the cock of which ever of the two men you're in love with and worship and stop your whoring.

    (Although some, like Andrew Sullivan, managed to worship and whore for both men.)


    If you want a military approach to Iraq -- I do not -- you need to grasp that Barack and Haider al-Abadi's strategy or 'strategy' or plan or 'plan' is doomed.

    It does not work.

    Even by military standards it will not work.

    If you want a military approach to Iraq's political crises, then what you want is not 'degrade and destroy' -- which are two bulls**t terms used to trick the American people -- many of whom want to be tricked, let's be honest.

    The two terms are "clear and hold."

    That's the military strategy that needs to be carried out in Iraq.

    You do not defeat (militarily) an 'enemy' in an area by jumping here (Tikrit) and then there (Ramadi) and then many miles over there and then many miles over here.

    If you're trying to defeat an enemy in the borders of country, a state, a province, whatever, you are doing clear and hold.

    You are starting from point X and you are methodically working to the next point.

    So if we're in California, for example, we don't clear Los Angeles and then jump tons of miles over to Monterey.

    If you made Los Angeles your starting point, you would immediately send  troops into Ventura and Kern and Orange and San Bernadino because each of those counties border Los Angeles (while keeping forces in Los Angels county to ensure that it is 'held').

    You would take Los Angeles county and then grab the immediate surroundings ones -- this is clear and hold.

    Once you had secured those counties, you would continue to work outwards.

    When you instead, grab Los Angeles county and then jump miles and miles and miles to the north to grab San Francisco, you accomplish nothing.  Between the two you have San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Benito, Merced, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, etc., etc.

    So if you retake Los Angeles and then jump to San Francisco, all those areas between the two?  That's where the 'enemy' will flood to.

    That's the point of the toothpaste analogy.  You're just pressing on one point of the tube and the toothpaste is just spreading elsewhere in the tube.

    (To be successful, you would need to work from the closed end of the toothpaste tube all the way across -- squeezing all the toothpaste out as you do -- to the nozzle.)

    This is not working militarily -- the current approach in Iraq -- and it will never work.  You can't do Tikrit in northern Iraq and then jump down to Ramadi.

    Clear and hold.

    That's basically door to door.

    And once you clear one area, you need to hold it.

    And you send additional forces into the bordering area and clear and hold that.  And you do that over and over, working through the country.

    That's the only way the approach works from a military stand point.

    From a military stand point, the current effort (whatever you want to call it -- plan, strategy, whatever) is a failure and will continue to be a failure.

    I don't support a military approach to the problems.  Maybe other Americans will.  That's fine, it's a democracy.  If they do support it, I'll still be a voice opposed to it (that's also democracy).

    But if you're going to do a military approach, you need to do one that could accomplish something and not one -- the one Barack and Haider al-Abadi are ordering -- that will never accomplish anything.

    Jumping from Tikrit to Ramadi just means the Islamic State moves all over in all directions.

    You're not 'herding' them by doing a clear and hold.

    You're allowing them to set up multiple bases wherever they want.

    The current approach is not methodical and it's insane from a military stand point.

    (And, yes, the Pentagon knows that.  That's why they don't like the approach.)

    RECOMMENDED: "Kat's Korner: Rickie's working the groove"
    "Kat's Korner: Wilco's Star Wars shreds the sonic l..."
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "ICYMI: Isakson Discusses Iran Deal on PBS NewsHour..."
    "The first day of Eid al-Fitr"
    "Barry O's Favorite Topic"
    "Racist Bernie Sanders"
    "Ant-Man -- small stuff for small minds"
    "Beauty and the Beast (a breather)"
    "Music and books"
    "The Rosenbergs"
    "ObamaCare"
    "Pluto"
    "war hawk samantha power"
    "Bitch, I ain't Madonna"
    "Profiting from the revolving door"
    "She don't need no stinkin' voters!"
    "THIS JUST IN! THEY'LL VOTE FOR HER TO GO AWAY!"