Friday, September 23, 2016

The trend that's taking the country by storm (Trump claims he knew it would happen)

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


IT'S THE HOT NEW TREND -- VOTING IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BUT NOT VOTING FOR THE DEMOCRAT OR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.

SOME POLLS SHOW AS MANY AS 14% OF VOTERS SAYING THEY WILL MAKE THAT MOVE AND THE NUMBER IS GROWING.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, DONALD TRUMP TOOK A BREAK FROM RUMMAGING THROUGH DELLA REESE'S OLD WIG COLLECTION TO OFFER, "OF COURSE I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN.  I KNOW EVERYTHING.  I PREDICTED IT WOULD HAPPEN.  I SAID SO WHEN I DECLARED MY CAMPAIGN.  IN FACT, I PREDICTED IT WHEN JOHN KERRY WAS RUNNING IN 2004.  ASK SEAN HANNITY, I TOLD HIM ALL ABOUT IT.  LOOK, I'M SMARTER THAN ANYONE.  NOTHING SURPRISES ME."

CRANKY CLINTON WAS FAR LESS UPBEAT, "DAMN MILLINIELS!  DON'T BLAME ME WHEN THE POWER GRID GOES OUT AND YOU CAN'T CHARGE YOUR SONY WALK MANS AND STREAM YOUR BOBBY SHERMAN AND TONY ORLANDO!  I HOPE YOU ALL F**KING CHOKE ON YOUR GAME BOYS AND XYZ STATIONS! SPOILED ROTTEN BRATS!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Starting with Hoshyar Zebari.

zebari


That's Zebari in better times pictures with his good friend and colleague Hillary Clinton.  Yesterday, he was voted out as the Minister of Finance in Iraq due to corruption.

Erika Solomon's piece for THE FINANCIAL TIMES OF LONDON has a headline echoed by some other outlets "Zebari no-confidence vote puts Iraq economy at risk."

If you've paid attention to Iraq, you're going to be rolling your eyes and laughing at what whores the press can be.

Oh, the horror, Iraq has no Minister of Finance!!!!!

You'll probably be thinking, "Wasn't Haider al-Abadi trying to get a brand new cabinet?  So doesn't this ouster go along with what he's called for and what the US government has backed?"

If you've really been paying attention, though, you'll probably be thinking back to November 2010 and how Nouri al-Maliki (re-installed as Iraq's prime minister by US President Barack Obama via The Erbil Agreement) was supposed to form a Cabinet.

Then how in January of 2011, he still didn't have a Minister of Defense.

Nouri al-Maliki went his entire second term without a Minister of Defense, from 2010 to 2014.

Now how did the Iraqi military end up in such poor shape that it ran from one 2014 battle after another?  That the only time it had the will to attack was when it was attacking Iraqi civilians?

Four years.

We pointed it out repeatedly in real time.

Where was the press then?


Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq snapshot"
"The waves of Operation Happy Talk continue to pass..."
"Remember when we warned about the devolving US rel..."
"Call out the new Joseph McCarthys"
"Ed Snowden"
"That crook"
"why is she not in prison?"
"The whores rush to defend her"
"Just a cover up between friends"
"Stone Tear"
"2 liars keep lying"
"Some Tweets"
"That fraud named Bono"
"MEDIA: Fred Kaplan and other Scurrilous Whores"
"Clinton takes it out on diabetics"
"THIS JUST IN! CLINTON SPITS ON DIABETICS!"







Saturday, September 17, 2016

Clinton takes it out on diabetics

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

CRANKY CLINTON HAS YET AGAIN SPAT ON POTENTIAL VOTERS.


TACOS AREN'T NORMALLY LOW CARB -- HENCE THE AT HOME RECIPES TO CUT THE CARBS.

CRANKY'S NOW INSISTING THAT IN A COUNTRY WITH DIABETES RATES SKYROCKETING THAT THE ANSWER TO A BETTER AMERICA IS EVEN MORE HIGH CARBS IN SOCIETY, IN FACT, A TACO TRUCK ON EVERY CORNER.

YET AGAIN, SHE PUTS PANDERING FOR VOTES AHEAD OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY.



In an article posted last night at THE WASHINGTON POST, Michael Kranish attempts to explore Hillary Clinton's support of the Iraq War.  Though probably one of the best pieces on the topic in the last two years, it actually raises more questions than Kranish is aware.

For those who may be too young to remember, in October of 2002, the Congress voted to give Bully Boy Bush power to go to war.  It's an illegal war.  Remember that because we're coming back to it -- it more than anything else demolishes Hillary's 'defense' -- a point Kranish doesn't even allude to.

Hillary voted for the illegal war.  No surprise in hindsight, she's a war monger.

Kranish notes that she now has a history of pinning her vote on Bully Boy Bush.

He then notes her advisors, including her husband Bill Clinton, were also urging her to vote for the Iraq War.

But this 'mistake' is not treated as a mistake by Hillary.

Blaming others for your vote is not taking accountability.

Krainish never even touches on it -- despite the fact that in last week's NBC forum, Hillary was again blaming Bully Boy Bush for her vote.


Ava and I explored this terrain earlier this week in "TV: NBC airs abstract art"



Here's some more reality that wasn't noted about Hillary.

She doesn't take responsibility.

She voted for the Iraq War.


She can't even be honest about that.



I was wrong.
Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.



Before you say, "Good for Hillary," that's not Hillary.

That's John Edwards penning a 2005 column for THE WASHINGTON POST.

"I was wrong."

"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002."

"I take responsibility for that mistake."

And here's Hillary:

Hillary Clinton: Look, I think that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a mistake. And I have said that my voting to give President Bush that authority was, from my perspective, my mistake. 


Going to war was a mistake, she insists.

But the only mistake she'll admit was giving Bully Boy "Bush that authority."

She's not taking responsibility.

She's bring up Bully Boy Bush, she's bringing up her opponent, she's doing everything but taking responsibility.

She won't own her mistake and she clearly won't learn from it.



That's not taking responsibility,

John Edwards, in his column quoted above, took responsibility.

Hillary tries to worm out of it by blaming everyone.

If she were your child and she'd dented the car and she started whining about how this friend or that friend --

You'd stop her right there.

You'd tell her the issue was that she dented the car.

But with Hillary Clinton, it's always drag other people into it, refuse to take responsibility.

That's a very glaring character flaw.











  • Sunday, September 11, 2016

    "The Other Woman" (Ray Parker Jr.)





    Hopping in on the theme posts.

    Fave soul song from the 80s and the 90s?

    I'm going to go with an overlooked gem, "The Other Woman."

    Ray Parker Jr. had a string of great songs in the 80s.

    Seems like all anyone remembers now is "Ghostbusters."

    But he had so much more than that.


    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


    Friday, September 9, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, lying and spinning continue, where does it all end?  Not with the current government in Iraq -- according to CIA Director John Brennan.



    Silicone party barbies
    To the left and
    Joan of Arcs to the right
    No one feeling insecure
    We were all gorge and famous in our last lives
    In the glories of the 80's
    You said 'the end is nothing to fear'
    I said: blow the end now baby
    Who do I gotta shag to get out of here

    -- "Glory of the 80s," written by Tori Amos, first appears on her TO VENUS AND BACK


    Welcome to the never ending election, where nothing is ever proposed and Trump and Clinton supporters spin and lie in the ongoing campaign of "Yes, my candidate lies but not as much as the other!"

    That's what Democratic and Republican politics have come to, "Vote for the liar who lies a little less often than the other."

    The madness never ends as FOIA requests are something to ignore -- a long with the destruction of evidence subpeoned by Congress.

    Everything can be justified by lying to yourself.

    Hiram Lee (WSWS), while reviewing JASON BOURNE --Matt Damon's desperate attempt to extend his flat acting career -- observes this behavior:


    The name of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is mentioned at various times throughout Jason Bourne. Damon, for his part, came out publicly in Snowden’s defense in a 2013 interview with the BBC, saying, “I think it’s a great thing that he did.” Around the same time, Damon told Black Entertainment Television that Obama “broke up with him” and that he questioned “the legality of the drone strikes and these NSA revelations.”
    By 2015, Damon and Obama had patched things up. Now Damon described the individual at the head of the government responsible for those drone strikes and NSA programs as “a remarkable human being” who was “shockingly easy to be around.”
    “I don’t ever question that it’s coming from the right place with him,” Damon reassured the press.

    The problems and pressures revealed in that turnabout, as much as anything else, explain why Jason Bourne is ultimately such a poor film.


    "I don't ever question that it's coming from the right place with him"?

    Maybe you have to picture him saying that with a cock in his mouth to truly appreciate it?

    Calm down, Matt.  You're getting uglier and fatter, people will stop wondering if you're gay shortly.  And then when no one cares about you and even TV won't take you, you'll miss the days when you went around teasing the media that you might be gay -- only two decades later to blame others for the rumors.

    Equally disgusting is Daniel Ketchum.

    At the website INQUISITR, he apparently believes he can just lie:

    As proof of his stellar foreign policy experience, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has frequently claimed that he did not support the Iraq War. However – as Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton pointed out at the NBC Commander-in-Chief forum yesterday – Trump did in fact support the war in the beginning and there is clear audio and video evidence backing this up.
    Oh, great, I thought, I don't have to be fair anymore.  There's multiple interviews of Donald Trump supporting the Iraq War.
    I don't like Trump.
    I've never liked him.
    And so this was great news.  I didn't have to sit here and be fair anymore.  
    He'd dug his own grave.
    So I read Ketchum eagerly only to discover that he has nothing.
    There is no "clear audio and video evidence."
    There's the Howard Stern September 11, 2002 interview where all Donald says is "I guess so."
    The media does need to push back.
    It needs to push back against this wave of lies.


    You can’t just let Trump tell obvious, widely-debunked lies in interviews

    For those who don't know or don't remember, Matthew Yglesias cheerleaded the Iraq War.

    I guess that explains why he's a liar today.


    Because "I guess so" is not support for the Iraq War.
    It's a month before Congress is even voting.
    It's six months before Colin Powell's 'blot.'
    And the words are "I guess so."
    Now if you're an idiot, a newborn, a hack or a liar, that's support for the Iraq War.
    If you're someone who spoke out against the Iraq War, that's not support for it.
    People who spoke out against the Iraq War were targeted.
    Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Janeane Garofalo, Harry Belafonte, the list is long.
    People who supported the Iraq War felt they could lie and publicly attack anyone and everyone.
    If the worst any of us had to fear was an Iraq War supporter saying "I guess so," the number speaking out would have been much greater.
    I started speaking out in February of 2003.
    The fact that I didn't do it in January of 2003, does that mane I supported the Iraq War?
    No, I never said "I guess so" but I don't see "I guess so" as support.
    I see "I guess so" as let's move the interview along.
    And I'd wonder if Howard Stern supported the Iraq War?
    That would even more explain why one friend speaking to another on radio would answer "I guess so."
    (I don't know Howard Stern's opinions. I don't like him.  Unlike THE NATION magazine, I've never hailed him -- or Bill Maher -- as examples of the great left.  They're sexist pigs and I have no tolerance for either.)
    But "I guess so" in September 2002 is not support for the Iraq War.
    If you think it is?
    (A) You weren't old enough to remember the start of 2003, (B) You've chosen to forget or (C -- most likely) you went along with the mob attacking those of us who spoke out.
    I hate Donald Trump but I'm not going to let a lot of little whores rewrite that period.
    You were attacked if you spoke out.
    There's the pot head columnist who fancies himself a hippie who has repeatedly apologized to me -- I wasn't attacked by him, I just blew him off because of the column -- who floated in a column in February 2003 that those peacefully protesting against the Iraq War were committing "treason" -- he used the term.
    So don't come to me now and start your b.s.
    Sheryl Crowe was attacked in the press for where she stood on the Iraq War.
    The orders came down from editiors -- and I have a list of ten editors -- that in their Grammy pieces, they had to attack Sheryl.
    Three years later, Jane Fonda returned to film with MONSTER-IN-LAW which was a funny comedy.  And yet you still had editors giving orders to trash the film.
    Don't come to me now with "I guess so" is support of the Iraq War.
    Because it isn't.
    And you're not going to lie for your War Hawk Hillary and get away with it.
    So as you read Ketchum's awful article in search of these pre-war interviews -- this evidence he has! -- you find he has nothing but the 2002 interview.
    The lying needs to be called out by the press.
    But, of course, that would be depending on the same press that sold the Iraq War.

    And we all know they don't do their job.

    Alan Greenspan would eventually admit the Iraq War was about oil -- he would do that on live radio and TV (DEMOCRACY NOW!).  He would have to retract it under pressure.

    But the Chair of the Fed knew it.

    So why we are giving Andrea Mitchell a pass?

    Why isn't she being Judy Miller-ed?

    She's been married to Greenspan for decades.

    So she knew what was what.

    Didn't stop her from filing pro-war pieces in the lead up to the Iraq War, did it?

    Liars clearly can't call out other liars.

    I hate Donald Trump.

    I find him offensive on every level and have for years and years.

    But that doesn't give me the right to lie about him.

    And if I do lie about him to score some political points, then I'm far worse than he is.

    I'll never rank as the greatest person in the world -- or in the country -- or in the state -- or even just in the room.

    But I do have ethics and I will not turn myself into trash by ignoring my ethics.

    I really fear for this crowd today, these whores and liars who sell themselves for politicians.

    Where does the whoring end?

    What's his name?

    They used to say Mary Matalin was him in a dress.

    Lee Atwater.



    Is that how this whoring ends?

    You go through life smearing others and lying and then, on your deathbed, you try to apologize for it?

    Like that makes any difference?

    Because it doesn't.


    You've already done the damage and you just look pathetic -- someone frightened of dying and judgment rushing to be absolved.

    As for changing stories, there's always Hillary.


    Contra her claims last night, the central premise of HRC's 2008 campaign was that the Iraq vote was *not* a mistake










    AFP reports:



    In an interview this week with the CTC Sentinel, a publication from the West Point military academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency said the current system of governance in the two countries might change altogether.
    “I don’t know whether or not Syria and Iraq can be put back together again. There’s been so much bloodletting, so much destruction, so many continued, seething tensions and sectarian divisions,” Brennan said.


    “I question whether we will see, in my lifetime, the creation of a central government in both of those countries that's going to have the ability to govern fairly.”



    Well Iraq's certainly not governed fairly today.  We'll give Brennan credit for telling the truth there.

    It's hard to tell who isn't persecuted in Iraq because it's pretty much everyone and has been that way since the start of the Iraq War.


    Among those persecuted are Christians.

    CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY reports:


    After the United States has declared that genocide is taking place against Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq, what is the next step for genocide victims displaced from their homes?
    “Together, we will advocate for the Christian, Yazidi, and other communities in Northern Iraq that they may return to their homes on the Nineveh Plain to be secured there by coalition and successive international forces,” Andrew Doran, senior adviser to the group In Defense of Christians, stated at the Sept. 7 press conference beginning the group’s advocacy convention in Washington, D.C.


    Years and years of persecution in Iraq ignored by the White House until the right wing p.r. campaign to promote war via the Yazidis came into place and finally, as sop, the word genocide got applied to the systematic eradication of Christians in Iraq.


    For those who've forgotten, the Iraqi Christians who were not forced to leave (or killed) began relocation to northern Iraq.

    On northern Iraq, we'll note this.



    ICYMI: President Barzani: No country is against Kurdistan independence











    President Barzani may be a little optimistic.


    Yesterday, the US Defense Dept announced:


    Strikes in Iraq
    Fighter aircraft and rocket artillery conducted seven strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Albu Hayat, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two bunkers and two vehicles.

    -- Near Haditha, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a building.

    -- Near Mosul, two strikes engaged an ISIL financial center and destroyed a weapons storage facility.

    -- Near Qayyarah, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle, 12 rocket rails, four rocket systems and an assembly area.

    -- Near Ramadi, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.

    -- Near Sinjar, a strike destroyed an ISIL tunnel entrance and suppressed a mortar position.


    Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.




    And out of the rubble grows -- as Hillary Clinton would put it -- business opportunities.









    Good for GE -- bringing good things to life -- as anyone who's seen the Hudson River can attest.  (That was sarcasm.)


    The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan -- updated:








    Thursday, September 08, 2016

    Barack imitates Whitney -- who will be his Bobby?


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

    FADED CELEBRITY AND FOREVER BITCH BARRY O DECLARED TODAY THAT DONALD TRUMP'S IDEAS WERE "WACKY" -- THEREBY REMINDING AMERICA OF WHEN WHITNEY HOUSTON -- WHO WOULD DIE OF DRUG ABUSE -- WAS INTERVIEWED BY DIANE SAWYER AND LIED AS SHE INSISTED SHE DID NOT DO CRACK.

    "CRACK," DECLARED THE SONGSTRESS, "IS WACK."

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST ASKED, "AIN'T IT SHOCKING WHAT LOVE CAN DO?  AIN'T IT SHOCKING WHAT LOVE CAN DO?"

    EARNEST THEN WAVED AS HE MOONWALKED OUT OF THE PRESS BRIEFING ROOM.


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    Hillary's evolving explanations on her e-mails are noted in THE WASHINGTON POST fact check.

    Again, despite multiple questions, she was allowed to repeatedly alter history.

    For those whining -- and some are -- that the e-mails were even raised -- hold a real press conference, quit running from the revelations.

    It's on her, she's a lousy campaigner.


    QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, as an Army veteran, a commander-in- chief's to empathize with servicemembers and their families is important to me. The ability to truly understand implications and consequences of your decisions, actions, or inactions. How will you determine when and where to deploy troops directly into harm's way, especially to combat ISIS?

    LAUER: As briefly as you can.

    CLINTON: We have to defeat ISIS. That is my highest counterterrorism goal. And we've got to do it with air power. We've got to do it with much more support for the Arabs and the Kurds who will fight on the ground against ISIS. We have to squeeze them by continuing to support the Iraqi military. They've taken back Ramadi, Fallujah. They've got to hold them. They've got to now get into Mosul.

    We're going to work to make sure that they have the support -- they have special forces, as you know, they have enablers, they have surveillance, intelligence, reconnaissance help.

    They are not going to get ground troops. We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops. So those are the kinds of decisions we have to make on a case-by-case basis.

    And, remember, when I became secretary of state, we had 200,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm very grateful that we have brought home the vast majority of those. We have a residual force, as you know, in Afghanistan. We have built up several thousands of the folks that I've talked about who are assisting in the fight against ISIS.

    But it is in our national security interest to defeat ISIS. And I intend to make that happen.



    They are not going to get ground troops?

    They have thousands of US troops -- and that's before you factor in Special Ops.

    And she knows that.

    And she lies.

    Here's NPR's fact check on her no ground troops claim:



    Is that a promise she could keep as president?
    The Short Answer
    No.
    The Long Answer
    Clinton has outlined a policy on ISIS that would pick up where President Obama's policy left off. Today, there are about 5,000 American troops in Iraq and several hundred deployed to northern Syria. They include special operations forces who are helping the Kurdish, Arab and other indigenous fighters, plus advisers, support troops and others. The White House doesn't count them as "ground troops," and evidently neither does Clinton, but they are serving close to the combat zone.
    U.S. service members have been killed as part of the fight against ISIS both on the ground and as part of the ongoing U.S. airstrikes. They've also found themselves in potential peril from airstrikes by Syrian and Russian warplanes, which are operating in Syria in support of the regime of President Bashar Assad. The Pentagon issued a stern warning to Damascus and Moscow to keep their aircraft well clear of where American troops in Syria are working on the ground to support indigenous forces in the fight against ISIS. American fighter aircraft have also tried to warn off Syrian and Russian warplanes.
    Clinton's promise about "ground troops" appeared to echo Obama's opposition to using large numbers of American forces to get into direct combat with ISIS. So although American special operations troops are helping Iraqi commanders plan their operations, and American pilots are flying overhead to spot targets or attack them, and American artillery is shelling ISIS positions, none of them count as "ground troops" under this construction.
    The U.S. has spent about $9 billion on the fight in Iraq and Syria since August of 2014, according to the Defense Department. American warplanes, both drone and human-piloted, have conducted about 15,000 airstrikes in both countries.
    Clinton said Wednesday at the forum, held in New York and televised on NBC, that defeating ISIS was her "highest counterterrorism goal," and that she wanted to do it with "air power" and "with much more support for the Arabs and Kurds who are in the fight ... we have to squeeze them." Clinton also promised that if she's elected she'll order what she called "an intelligence surge," which she said would involve helping U.S. intelligence agencies collect more information and distribute it "more quickly down the ladder" to state and local law enforcement agencies, in hopes of preventing terror attacks.


    And nothing she spoke of goes to the issue of eliminating the Islamic State.

    You do that by stripping them of anything they have that can make them look like a savior.

    So you make demands on the Iraqi government to stop persecuting the Sunnis.

    You make them abide by what they have agreed to.

    You make them carry that out.

    How?

    You withhold money if they won't do it, you stop sending F-16s if they won't do it, on and on and on.

    Hillary, despite being Secretary of State for four years, has only one answer: War!



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Both corporate parties would sell out our children..."
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Zebari, the word the western press refuses to utte..."
    "Talking post"
    "The real Hillary"
    "It's on them"
    "A bitch named Barack"
    "Hillary wants you to "read the reports""
    "The sad glorification of war"
    "Can that idiot get any worse?"
    "Jill Stein, The Mindy Project, Mad About You"
    "Natalie Wood"
    "disgusting glenn and inflaming hillary"
    "Video you have to check out"
    "How did I miss WILD OATS?"
  • "Why won't Barack let Craig Murray into the country?"
    "a disappointment, a joyful moment"
    "Henry Wallace"
    "Oklahoma"
    "The polls are not Hillary's friend"
    "No leadership"
    "Global warming"
    "Does Bill know about castrati Syd Blumenthal?"
    "THIS JUST IN! SYD LOVES HILL!"





    Saturday, September 03, 2016

    Does Bill know about castrati Syd Blumenthal?

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

    CRANKY CLINTON SAID SHE HAS "ALWAYS ALWAYS" TRIED TO TELL THE TRUTH.

    SO SHE'S JUST AN ALL AROUND FAILURE.

    NOT EVEN HER ALTERNATE VAGINA SYD BLUMENTHAL CAN GHOST-WRITE ENOUGH COPY TO MAKE HER LOOK GOOD.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, SYD TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I REGRET THAT I HAVE BUT TWO ORIFICES TO GIVE FOR MY QUEEN."



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    Which brings us to The Clinton Foundation.


    Iraq War cheerleader Matty Y has a stupid article where he whines that Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were treated differently.  Bob Moobs Somerby rushes in to nurse Matty Y and insist it is because Hillary's a Democrat.

    I'm so sick of what may be whoring and/or binary thinking.

    It's either/or with this undereducated crowd who think they know something and never have known a damn thing.

    Again, Bob, you're welcome.  I'm glad I taught you about narrative so that you can finally stop embarrassing yourself in that regard.  You are welcome.

    But you're still too much of an idiot.

    What's the difference between Hillary and Colin?

    It's not political.

    It's not even race.

    Colin is a retired general.

    Sandy Berger is a disgraced pundit for what he did (smuggling out documents in his underwear).  David Petraeus is someone the press still rushes to prop up -- despite his handing over classified documents to his mistress.

    What's the difference?

    It's not gender.

    It's not race.

    It has nothing to do with politics.

    It has everything to do with the media's worship of the military.

    I don't worship, sorry.

    Colin's never gotten a pass here.

    But I am aware of his efforts to whitewash War Crimes in Vietnam and am aware that his ugly record goes back very far.

    And that the media has refused to challenge him and instead applauded him.

    Does that surprise you?

    Only if you're uneducated.

    In 1961, Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell as president in a speech citing the military industrial complex and the damage it could do.


    This did not lead to a continued series of journalistic exposes from major news outlets.

    Instead, they turned their heads, averted their eyes and largely acted as though Eisenhower had beeen speaking of the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR.

    Equally true, Colin never ran for president -- which demands a higher level of scrutiny.

    The media's failing yet again as they play talking heads about whether or not Hillary Clinton broke the law with regards to her actions as Secretary of State and The Clinton Foundation.

    She broke her promise -- that's what she broke.

    And, yes, it does matter.

    She agreed to certain things to be Secretary of State.

    Barack Obama did not say, "Now, Hillary, you can't break the law."

    It was assumed that, like every American, she was already expected to obey the law.

    What she promised was to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    Because of the importance of the position, her actions had to rise to that level.

    She agreed to that.

    She failed to honor it and -- looking at her actions -- it's clear she never intended to.

    She's unethical.

    She may have broken the law as well -- nothing so far demonstrates she did.

    But she is unethical and that's demonstrated by the shady deals and dealings she engaged in.

    That is also on no one but herself.

    She was expected to meet a certain standard and she did not.

    Begla and Carville and all the other whores can lie about the great work The Clinton Foundation does (it doesn't -- and Chelsea's salary alone as a board member would outrage most Americans -- and, yes, Bob, you're welcome on my explaining/correcting you on the fact that board members draw a salary -- what an idiot Bob Somerby is.)

    That's not the issue.

    Even illegality is not the issue.

    She signed a document promising to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    She knew what was expected of her and she agreed to it and then she refused to honor it.

    That's unethical.


    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Green Party Presidential Candidates Dr. Jill Stein..."
    "Real debates don't exclude candidates"
    "Gene Wilder's ten best films"
    "Time to take a test on Hillary"
    "How stupid is Hillary?"
    "her bad week"
    "Explain to me again why we didn't do Medicare for all"
    "Arrest her"
    "She did say that"
    "Neoconnery from Hillary"
    "The War Hawk"
    "Two movies I'm waiting on"
    "The normalizing of war"
    "Worth considering"
    "The Young Turks explain The Clinton Foundation"
    "Poor little Ezzie Klein"
    "Why I'm voting Green"
    "That crooked Clinton Foundation"
    "matt lauer?"
    "Break the duopoly"
    "A little music trivia"
    "You paid for it"
    "THIS JUST IN! THEY'RE VERY CHARITABLE WITH YOUR DOLLARS!"





  • Thursday, September 01, 2016

    You paid for it

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


    DO YOU SIT ON THE BOARD OF THE CLINTON FOUNDATION?


    MAYBE YOU SHOULD.

    YOU PAID FOR IT.

    AND MAYBE IF YOU SAT ON IT, LIKE CHELSEA, YOU'D GET A $900,000 YEARLY PAY OUT TOO?


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    Handing children guns -- the topic of a question raised in Wednesday's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson John Kirby.


    QUESTION: Human Rights Watch says Iraqi Government-backed militias have recruited children in preparation for an offensive to drive ISIL from Mosul. They call on the Iraqi Government to take action to demobilize child soldiers. Has the U.S. raised the issue with the Iraqi Government or are you going – aware of the issue?


    MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of that report. Obviously, we would strongly condemn the use of children as soldiers in any armed conflict, but I’m not aware that – of this particular report.


    First, let's inform you of what Kirby couldn't -- takes a lot of time to curl those lashes, doesn't it, John?


    Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch issued an alert which opened:

    Iraqi government-backed militias have recruited children from at least one displaced persons camp in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq to fight against Islamic State forces. All security forces and armed groups should abide by international law and demobilize any fighters under age 18.
      Witnesses and relatives told Human Rights Watch that two tribal militias (Hashad al-Asha`ri) recruited as fighters at least seven children from the Debaga camp on August 14, 2016, and drove them to a town closer to Mosul, where Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are preparing for an offensive to drive the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, from the city. The Hashad al-Asha`ri, made up of local Sunni fighters, are expected to play a key role in Mosul military operations, while the government may order the mainly Shia militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces to stay out of the Mosul fighting.
    “The recruitment of children as fighters for the Mosul operation should be a warning sign for the Iraqi government,” said Bill Van Esveld, senior children’s rights researcher. “The government and its foreign allies need to take action now, or children are going to be fighting on both sides in Mosul.”
      Human Rights Watch has documented that ISIS has extensively recruited and deployed children in its forces.
    Debaga camp, 40 kilometers south of Erbil, currently houses over 35,000 people displaced in the fighting between government forces and ISIS. Two people living in the camp since March told Human Rights Watch that at least two militia groups engaged in the fighting against ISIS are entirely made up of camp residents. They said that these two militias, commanded by Sheikh Nishwan al-Jabouri and by Maghdad al-Sabawy, the son of the recently deceased commander Fares al-Sabawy, have been recruiting from the camp for months. Their trucks have been arriving empty, and driving away filled with men, and in some cases, boys.

    The two camp residents said that two very large trucks arrived in the evening of August 14 and took away about 250 new recruits, at least 7 of them under age 18, to join Sheikh al-Jabouri’s forces. Witnesses and other camp residents said that all the men and boys volunteered to join the militias. An aid worker who was on the road saw the two trucks heading to Hajj Ali, a town about 46 kilometers from Debaga and 7 kilometers from the front lines with ISIS. They contacted local aid workers in Hajj Ali, who confirmed that the group had arrived there, stayed for one night, and then went on to join a militia nearby.


    John Kirby pinky swears he's never even heard of the report, is completely unfamiliar with it.

    There are two options here.

    First, he's lying because the militias are part of the Iraqi government (Hayder al-Abadi incorporated them into the armed forces some time ago) and the US government is not allowed to 'partner' in military operations with governments that use child soldiers.

    So he's lying to avoid legal ramifications.

    Or there's the second choice: He's really that stupid.

    Let's go with the second choice.

    I think it's the first but I think he's playing dumb on the national stage to avoid legal ramifications.


    So the US government has wasted X trillion of US taxpayer dollars on this never-ending illegal war and US troops are on the ground there and President Barack Obama has appointed a special envoy (Brett McGurk) and the State Dept and John Kirby can't be bothered monitoring Iraq?


    That's what he's saying to the United States and to the world -- but to the US taxpayers that pay his salary -- and all that eye liner can't be cheap, John -- he's saying that he can't be bothered.


    They can play with tax dollars like it's paper play money and with human lives like their plastic figures, they just can't pay attention to reality.

    Not a good message for the State Dept to convey.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "A bombing, a denial"
    "Hejira"
    "Kat's Korner: Encore or just hurry her off stage a..."
    "Diana the living legend"
    "MECHANIC RESURRECTION"
    "Tweet of the week"
    "The lack of ethics"
    "A face so scary you will gasp"
    "Plans?"
    "The so-called Boss became the Twinkee all over again"
    "to know know know her is to loathe loathe loathe her"
    "The smut that is the Clintons"
    "The threat to our national security"
    "A major address coming from Clinton"
    "THIS JUST IN! CLINTON TO MAKE CASE TO NATION!"
    "That insane Ann Rice"
    "How we ended up with Trump and Clinton"
    "Crooked Corrine Brown loses the primary (but may win a bed in prison!)"
    "That questionable woman"
    "The racist trying to make money off the Obamas"
    "Open up the debates"
    "Streisand, Diana Ross, Heart and more"
    "A case for Jill Stein"
    "barbra streisand releases a bomb"
    "More bad news for ObamaCare"