Friday, September 19, 2014

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto,

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

IN BELL FLORIDA, DON CHARLES SPIRIT ALLEGEDY SHOT DEAD HIS DAUGHTER AND HER SIX CHILDREN (HIS GRANDCHILDREN).

REACHED FOR COMMENT TODAY AT THE WHITE HOUSE, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O BARELY LOOKED UP FROM HIS ANGRY BIRDS GAME AS HE DECLARED, "MICHELLE AND I ARE DEEPLY SADDENED BY THE LOSS.  HE COULD HAVE BEEN OUR SON OR DAUGHTER.  YADA YADA YADA AND GOD BLESS AMERICA."




FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Yesterday in the US, the House of Representatives voted to approve funding for the training and arming of so-called 'rebels' in Syria.  Today it was the Senate's turn.

And they also passed funding more war and destruction and a 'plan' that just isn't there.


22 members of the Senate voted against it:

Senators Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders,  Mark Begich, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Barrasso, Sherrod Brown, Tom Coburn, Joe Manchin, Mike Lee, Patrick Leahy, Dean Heller, Ron Paul, Jeff Sessions, James E. Risch, Pat Roberts, Elizabeth Warren, Ted Cruz, Mike Crapo, Ed Markey, Jerry Moran, Chris Murphy and Mike Enzi.



The other 78 US senators voted for it -- no one abstained.

Senator Sanders' office issued the following statement:



Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday voted against the United States training and arming Syrian rebels. Sanders said the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria “is a brutal and dangerous extremist organization which must be defeated, but this war cannot be won by the United States alone. There needs to be a real international coalition led by the countries most threatened – Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and Iran. The worst thing that we can do now is allow ISIS to portray this struggle as East vs. West, as Muslim vs. Christian, as the Middle East vs. America. That is exactly what they want and that is exactly what we should not be giving them.”
The senator faulted wealthy Middle East nations for doing too little to protect their own interests, especially when Saudi Arabia has the fourth largest military budget in the world. He also questioned why American taxpayers are footing the bill when royal families that rule those Mideast nations are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. 
“This is not just a question of whether young men and women in Vermont and across America should be putting their lives on the line in another Mideast war.  It is not just about whether the taxpayers of our country should once again pay for a war in the Middle East. It is about the reality that, long term, this struggle will never be won by the United States alone.  It must be won with the active participation of the Muslim countries in the region,” Sanders said.
Sanders said he supports President Barack Obama’s judicious use of airstrikes which already have shown some success, but in opposing the resolution Sanders said, “I fear very much that supporting questionable groups in Syria who will be outnumbered and outgunned by both ISIS and the Assad regime could open the door to the United States once again being dragged back into the quagmire of long-term military engagement.”
The provision to fund forces battling the ISIS terrorist group was included in a stopgap spending bill to fund the government through Dec. 11. The measure, approved by the Senate, had passed the House on Wednesday.




US President Barack Obama insisted the vote demonstrated that Americans were united, Sandra Maler and Peter Cooney (Reuters) report..

Uh, no, it didn't.  America didn't get to vote.  Members of Congress voted.

And AFP reports:

For the first time since President Barack Obama took office, more Americans disapprove than approve his handling of terror threats, The New York Times reported Thursday, citing a new poll.
The slide in the president’s approval ratings on terrorism comes as the White House ramps up its fight against the Islamic State group that recently beheaded three Westerners, including two US journalists.  The New York Times-CBS poll found that 50 percent hold a negative view of how Obama is generally dealing with terrorism, while only 41 percent approve.



US Senator Rand Paul got to vote and he voted against the measure while declaring "make no mistake arming Islamic rebels in Syria will only make it harder to destroy ISIS."  We'll close the snapshot with Rand Paul's remarks in full but it's much too long to drop in at the start of the snapshot.



Sharif Nashashibi (Information Clearing House) notes:

Like Bush, Obama is accused of abusing executive authority by saying he does not need the approval of Congress. The White House cites the 2001 Authorisation for Military Force against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, which was passed by Congress after the 9/11 attacks.
However, this applies to nations and organisations that "planned, authorised, committed or aided" the attacks. The IS did not exist at that time, and was disavowed by its parent organisation, al-Qaeda in February this year.
"It's preposterous to suggest that a congressional vote 13 years ago can be used to legalise new bombings in Syria and additional (non-combat) forces in Iraq," Bruce Ackerman, professor of law and political science at Yale University, wrote in the New York Times. Obama's "refusal even to ask the Justice Department to provide a formal legal pretext for the war on ISIS is astonishing."


Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) points out that Secretary of State John Kerry also cited the 9/11 authorization and went further by insisting Article II of the Constitution provides Barack with all the authorization he needs:

Kerry’s invocation of Article Two is eerily reminiscent of the rationales offered by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their Justice Department lawyers, who claimed that the President in time of war could do anything he wanted abroad and even at home. (John Yoo, the White House is on the line…)
For liberals, it was an embarrassing day. Senator Barbara Boxer of California was there to defend the President and his misuse of the AUMF. And the most ardent defender of the Constitution and Congress’s power to declare war was not a Democrat but Senator Rand Paul.




John Kerry appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee today and he declared:


Early this summer, the ISIL threat accelerated when it effectively obliterated the Iraq-Syria border and the Mosul Dam fell. And there are complicated reasons for why that happened. It’s not just a straightforward they-ran-over-them deal. It has to do with the kind of army that Prime Minister Maliki began to create. It has to do with Shia and Sunni. It has to do with a lot of other ingredients. But as a result of that, we further surged our ISR missions immediately over Iraq. We immediately set up joint operation centers in Baghdad and Erbil. And our Special Forces conducted immediately a very detailed assessment of the Iraqi Security Forces, because we needed to know in order to be able to answer your questions and the questions of the American people what might we be getting into here. Do we have an Iraqi army that’s capable of fighting? To what degree? What will it take to reconstitute it? So whatever judgments are coming to you now are coming to you as a consequence of that assessment. And in addition to that, I’m proud to say that thanks to American engagement, ISIL’s movement, which was rapid at that point in time and perilous, was stopped. Together with the Peshmerga and the brave, courageous souls, the Kurds who stood up, we were able to not only stop them there but to liberate Amirli, which had been under siege, liberate Sinjar Mountain, to begin to bring our efforts to bear on Haditha Dam and make a difference. And by the time ISIL had launched its offensive in the north, President Obama began airstrikes to begin with on a humanitarian basis to protect American personnel and prevent major catastrophes such as the fall of Haditha Dam or the maintenance of the Mosul Dam and also to bolster the Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish forces.  To date, we’ve launched more than 150 airstrikes. And I know that sounds like – it doesn’t sound like – that’s very few compared to the 16,000 that was mentioned earlier. But it’s a different deal right now, because I believe we rightfully, absolutely needed to get in place a structured, clear, Iraqi-chosen Iraqi effort that provided a government with which we can work going forward. If you didn’t have a government with which you could work going forward, nothing that we tried to do would have had the impact necessary. So the platforms we put in place last June have enabled us to be able to do what we’ve done now, and there’s absolute clarity to the fact that we blunted ISIL’s momentum, created the time and space to be able to put together a comprehensive strategy, get the inclusive government, and build a broad coalition. And that’s the way we ought to go at this.



It's amazing how far they'll go to spin.

Reality, Barack's actions have led the Islamic State to more than double its membership -- and that's according to CIA figures.


All his attacks have done is act as a recruiting tool.

Tom Perry and Larry King (Reuters) report::

Islamic State has won new recruits in Syria since President Barack Obama signaled last week that air strikes against the group will be expanded from Iraq to its strongholds in northern and eastern Syria, a group monitoring the war said on Wednesday.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 162 people had joined Islamic State training camps in Aleppo province since Sept 10, when Obama said he would not hesitate to strike Islamic State in Syria.


Barack's very good at turning out new members for the Islamic State.  He's yet to prove himself to be good at 'decimating' the Islamic State



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraqi military continues to defy the prime ministe..."
"Meatloaf"
"Hamburgers"
"Crab"
"Turkey"
"Ham"
"Chicken"
"fish sticks"
"The veggie burger at Burger King"
"Shrimp"
"Rib eye"
"Does he ever shut up?"
"THIS JUST IN! HE CAN'T STOP YAMMERING!"





Thursday, September 18, 2014

Does he ever shut up?

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


IT'S OFFICIAL, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O IS A BITCH.

HE CAN'T SHUT UP, HE HAS TO WEIGH IN ON EVERYTHING.

LITTLE PRINCESS MUST HAVE BEEN PROTECTED IN INDONESIA -- MAYBE HIS NANNY DRESSED HIM AS A GIRL -- BECAUSE SOMEONE WHO CAN'T STOP FLAPPING THEIR GUMS TENDS TO GET THE S**T KICKED OUT OF THEM IN SCHOOL -- REPEATEDLY.

THIS OBVIOUSLY NEVER HAPPENED TO BARRY O WHICH IS HOW HE CAME TO WEIGH IN ON THE ISSUE OF SCOTLAND AND HOW HE'S AGAINST THEIR INDEPENDENCE.

HE'S NOT A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY, SO WHY DOESN'T HE JUST SHUT THE F**K UP?

SERIOUSLY.

THE LITTLE BITCH NEEDS TO LEARN THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED HIS THOUGHTS ON SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE OR ON WHAT KANYE DID OR THIS OR THAT.

HE WAS ELECTED TO DO A JOB.

HE'S MADE TIME FOR EVERYTHING BUT THAT.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




This afternoon in Florida, US President Barack Obama declared,  "The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission.  They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists."

Barack was attempting to push back against remarks Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, made yesterday when he and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Dempsey made comments such at this:


Gen Martin Dempsey:  At this juncture, our advisors are intended to help the Iraqis develop a mindset for the offensive and the actions to match it. Our military advisors will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support, and coordinate Coalition contributions. To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President. 


In response to that and other remarks yesterday, Barack declared today,  "The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission.  They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as  they fight for their own country against these terrorists."


I don't understand how he can say that.


US troops are in Iraq.  Iraq War veteran J.R. Salzman Tweeted:


  • Why does POTUS keep saying we won't have combat troops in Iraq when we already do, and why won't the media call him out on it? Come on.



  • Why indeed?  They're there and they have a combat mission in Iraq.

    Dempsey acknowledged that in the hearing yesterday.

    Gen Martin Dempsey: First of all, I think everyone should be aware when we talk about "combat forces," that's all we grow.  When we bring a young man or woman in the military, they come in to be a combat soldier or a combat Marine or a combat -- We don't bring them in to be anything else other than combat capable.  But that's different than how we use them.  And in the case of our contributions in Iraq right now, the airmen, as the Chair -- as the Ranking Member mentioned, are very much in a combat role. 


    That is a combat role.


    And it sounded like one in Barack's speech today when Barack stated, "So, last month, I gave the order for our military to begin taking targeted action against ISIL.  And since then, our brave pilot and crews -- with your help -- have conducted more than 160 airstrikes against these terrorists.  Because of your efforts, we’ve been able to protect our personnel and our facilities, and kill ISIL fighters, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory.  They’ve helped our partners on the ground break ISIL sieges, helped rescue civilians cornered on a mountain, helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children."


    It sounds like combat because it is combat.


    US Senator Kelly Ayotte Tweeted:


  • POTUS said today our troops in Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. What do you call dropping bombs from planes?


  • Trevor Timm Tweeted:







  • And The Atlantic's David W. Brown offers:







    Dempsey's remarks appears to have stripped the pretense off what's taking place in Iraq.


    Mark Landler and Jeremy W. Peters (New York Times) note:

    The general’s statement lays bare the challenge the president will face in selling an expanded military campaign to a war-weary American public. Mr. Obama, seeking to allay fears of another Iraq war, has promised that American ground troops will not be involved in fighting the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. In a sign of the administration’s mixed message, the president pointedly did not call it a war, while his advisers later did.
    But the realities of a prolonged campaign, General Dempsey said, could make such a hands-off approach untenable, particularly if the battle against the militants moves into densely populated cities where airstrikes are less effective and the chances of civilian casualties are much higher. His candid testimony, hours before a divided House of Representatives began debating whether to approve Mr. Obama’s request for authority to arm the Syrian rebels, drew expressions of concern from antiwar groups and could further complicate the political dynamic for the president.


    All Iraq News adds:

    The U.S. already has hundreds of advisors on the ground in Iraq. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told the Senate panel he cannot rule out combat troops returning to Iraq, albeit in a limited role.
    "If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific (militant) targets, I will recommend that to the president," Dempsey said.
    Such actions, he added, would be considered "close combat advising."
    President Barack Obama has maintained U.S. combat troops would not be returning to the country. U.S. ground troops left the country in 2011 after nine years.
    "At this point, (the president's) stated policy is we will not have US ground forces in direct combat," Dempsey said. "But he has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis."


    As David Jackson (USA Today) notes, "President Obama doubled down Wednesday on an increasingly questioned pledge."

    Barack's push back today was especially surprising since he was aware of what Dempsey was going to say and knew of the opening remarks.  Jim Acosta and Kevin Liptak (CNN) note the White House was briefed on Dempsey's opening claim:

    Gen Martin Dempsey:  At this juncture, our advisors are intended to help the Iraqis develop a mindset for the offensive and the actions to match it. Our military advisors will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support, and coordinate Coalition contributions. To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President. 


    Briefed ahead of time.  Elaine noted it at her site, we noted it in the snapshot, these were prepared remarks, submitted in writing before the hearing began.  Dempsey read from the written statement word for word.  These prepared remarks went around the administration -- including to the White House -- before they were allowed to be submitted to Congress.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Dempsey's remarks on combat in Iraq continue to ga..."
    "On Halle, TV and summer movies"
    "Extant wraps up season one"
    "Extant (Ethan is what?)"
    "The never-ending war"
    "Truth?"
    "Extant has been thrilling TV"
    "Opposing Barack's wars"
    "barry manilow"
    "Food for thought"
    "Will Barbra hold the record?"
    "They are in Iraq"
    "THIS JUST IN! HIS SENIOR MOMENT!"






  • Wednesday, September 17, 2014

    They are in Iraq

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


    HIS POLL NUMBERS FALLING FASTER THAN J. EDGAR HOOVER'S DRAWERS, FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECLARED TODAY THAT HE WOULD NOT BE SENDING COMBAT TROOPS INTO IRAQ.

    APPARENTLY IT WAS A SENIOR MOMENT SINCE HE ALREADY HAS SENT COMBAT TROOPS INTO IRAQ.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL JOSH EARNEST ASKED, "WHO'S EBOLA AND WHY IS EVERYONE SO MAD AT HER?"


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    While Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stumbled repeatedly as he read his opening statement out loud, Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, managed to read from his prepared remark with considerable ease -- even when his remarks were shocking.

    Gen Martin Dempsey:  At this juncture, our advisors are intended to help the Iraqis develop a mindset for the offensive and the actions to match it. Our military advisors will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support, and coordinate Coalition contributions. To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President. 

    This was not stated in response to a question.  This statement was not uttered in surprise.


    It was part of Dempsey's prepared remarks, submitted in writing before the start of the hearing and read out loud at the start of the hearing.

    The fact that it rejects Barack's insistence that there will be no US 'combat' troops in Iraq did not appear to phase Dempsey or, for that matter, Hagel who sat next to him as Dempsey made the statement -- and made the statement mere minutes after Hagel was declaring


    To support Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish forces, the President announced last week that we would deploy an additional 475 American troops to Iraq.  Part of that number includes approximately 150 advisors and support personnel to supplement forces already in Iraq conducting assessments of the Iraqi Security Forces. This assessment mission is now transitioning to an advise-and-assist mission, with more than 15 teams embedding with Iraqi Security Forces at the headquarters level to provide strategic and operational advice and assistance.  The rest of the additional 475 troops include 125 personnel to support intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions out of Erbil and 200 personnel to increase headquarters elements in both Baghdad and Erbil . . . helping us better coordinate military activities across Iraq.  By the time all these forces arrive, there will be approximately 1,600 U.S. personnel in Iraq responding to the ISIL threat. But, as the President said last week, "American forces will not have a combat mission."


    From Hagel repeating Barack's claim of "American forces will not have a combat mission" to Dempsey declaring, "To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President."

    All before a single question was asked.

    And these prepared statements?

    They're not only delivered in writing ahead of time to the Congressional Committees, they're distributed throughout the administration.

    The White House signed off on Dempsey's remarks.

    It is their trial balloon?

    Or their cover-your-ass moment where Barack can come back later, after US troops are fighting (there are credible reports already that they are fighting alongside the Kurdish peshmerga) and say, "Well we told Congress it was a possibility"?



    Certainly, Iraq's news outlets treated the remarks by Dempsey as news.  All Iraq News filed multiple stories noting the remarks, "The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Martin Dempsey, hinted Tuesday that he would consider recommending a more direct involvement of US ground troops in the military's ongoing campaign against the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State (also ISIS or ISIL)," "Dempsey, who has long been reluctant to re-introduce US forces into Middle Eastern wars, signaled that some of the 1,600 US military “advisers” Obama deployed to Iraq since June may directly fight Isis, despite Obama’s frequent public assurances that US ground troops will not engage in combat," and "The US head of the US Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey,  stated that the US advisors might accompany the Iraqi security forces in their military operations."
    Sidebar, Dempsey was never "reluctant."
    I don't know where All Iraq News is getting that.
    We were at the 2011 hearing where Dempsey, sitting next to then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, was chomping at the bit for US forces to remain in Iraq.
    You may remember that because we covered it here.  I believe only the New York Times bothered to cover it elsewhere.
    But in the years that followed, people have called Senator John McCain a liar for his version of the drawdown backstory.  He's not been lying or even misinformed and we've defended him on that.
    It'll be interesting to see if anyone notes what Dempsey said in the hearing, during McCain's questioning, after Hagel begged off answering.  Dempsey returned to that 2011 hearing testimony.  Again, it'll be interesting to see who covers that or ignores it.
    Dempsey didn't just raise the point of US forces being in a combat role in Iraq once.
    He raised it repeatedly in the hearing.  For example, in response to Chair Levin's questions in the opening round, Dempsey would declare, "As I said in my [opening] statement, however, my view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward.  I believe that will prove true.   But if it fails to be true and if there are threats to the United States then I would of course go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of US military ground forces." 
    Another example?  Ranking Member Jim Inhofe asked about the issue in his round of questioning.
    Ranking Member Jim Inhofe:  In your opinion, let me ask you two questions, Gen Dempsey.  In your opinion, are the pilots dropping bombs in Iraq -- as they're now doing -- a direct combat mission?  And, secondly, will US forces be prepared to provide combat search and rescue if a pilot gets shot down?  Will they put boots on the ground to make that rescue successful?

    Gen Martin Dempsey: Yes.  And yes.
     
    Are you following it?
    Dempesy says he'd recommend ground forces if things got more violent.
    And if a US pilot was shot down.
    And?
    We'll note this exchange from the hearing.

    Senator Jack Reed: Gen Dempsey, we've had a debate going on and on about some boots on the ground, no boots on the ground, no boots on the ground but military personnel on the ground.  It might help us all if you could clarify precisely what our forces are doing in Iraq today.  And you've also suggested that if the situation changes, you might recommend -- or come to us with recommendations that they would enhance their mission or change their mission.  Can you clarify what they're doing? 

    Gen Martin Dempsey: I can.  Thanks for asking, Senator.  The -- First of all, I think everyone should be aware when we talk about "combat forces," that's all we grow.  When we bring a young man or woman in the military, they come in to be a combat soldier or a combat Marine or a combat -- We don't bring them in to be anything else other than combat capable.  But that's different than how we use them.  And in the case of our contributions in Iraq right now, the airmen, as the Chair -- as the Ranking Member mentioned, are very much in a combat role.  The folks on the ground are in a very much advisory role. They are not participating in direct combat.  There is no intention for them to do so. I've mentioned, though, that if I found that circumstance evolving that I would, of course, change my recommendation.  An example, if-if the Iraqi security forces and the peshmerga were ready to retake Mosul a-a mission that I would find extraordinarily complex, it could very well be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising or accompanying for that mission.  But for the day to day activities that I anticipate will evolve over time, I don't see it to be necessary right now.
     
    So he'll also recommend US forces on the ground in combat if he feels the Iraqi military is undertaking a "complex" mission?


     Dempsey appears to be preparing reasons/excuses for US forces to go into combat -- in fact, thus far, everything short of an unprovoked sneeze would appear to result in Dempsey calling for US troops on the ground in combat.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Threats of prosecution and bribes used to pacify r..."
    "'Progress' in Iraq"
    "The illegal spying"
    "Sad Ray"
    "Medea"
    "More sexism from Marvel"
    "Another broken promise"
    "More ObamaCare insanity"
    "The poor"
    "Ralph and Mindy"
    "The Saudi Connection"
    "ebola"
    "The next front of the war? Ebola!"
    "THIS JUST IN! U.S. DECLARES WAR ON EBOLA!"




  • Tuesday, September 16, 2014

    The next front of the war? Ebola!

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


    WEARING HIS PRETTIES PURPLE TIE WITH JUST A HINT OF LIP GLOSS, FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS ADDRESSING THE NATION/WORLD AS HE EXPLAINS HE IS DECLARING WAR ON EBOLA AND DUBBING IT A "NATIONAL SECURITY" ISSUE.

    BARRY O DENIED THIS WAS A SHIFT IN POSITIONS AND THAT IT REBUKED THE FAMOUS 2002 SPEECH WHERE HE DECLARED, "I'M NOT AGAINST ALL DISEASES JUST THE COMMON COLD."

    "THE EBOLA," BARRY O INSISTED, "PROBABLY HAS ITS ROOTS IN THE COMMON COLD."

    ASKED BY A SKEPTICAL PRESS TO NAME A DISEASE HE WASN'T AGAINST, BARRY O OFFERED "UH, RESTLESS LEG SYNDROME -- LOOK, I'M NOT GOING TO LIST ALL THE DISEASES I DO SUPPORT, I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT.  THE POINT IS, WE KNOW THAT IF WE TAKE THE PROPER STEPS WE CAN SAVE LIVES.  YOU WILL SEE.  THIS WILL BE JUST ANOTHER SUCCESS STORY -- LIKE LIBYA OR IRAQ."


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    A lot of talk about Iraq is passed off as reporting in today's spin cycle.

    Real reporting from Iraq would focus on real issues such as the question of was an order given or not?

    Because if an order was given and the Iraqi military refused to obey it, there would be no reason for the US government and others to come to the 'aid' of government.


    Third's "Editorial: The bombing of civilians continues in Iraq" noted Iraq's new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, ordered an end to the military bombing civilian targets on Saturday.

    That's what al-Abadi declared publicly.

    Yet on Sunday,  Falluja General Hospital was bombed and, in addition, Iraqi Spring MC noted the bombings of residential neighborhoods in Falluja also continued with 6 civilians left dead  and 22 more injured.

    Was al-Abadi lying on Saturday?

    Or did the Iraqi military ignored orders given by the prime minister?

    If it's the latter, if an order was given and the Iraqi military refused to follow it, there's no point in any foreign government 'helping' at this point.


    And if the issue is a politician who lied?

    That's damaging in its own way.  Alice Fordham (Sunday Weekend Edition, NPR -- link is text and audio) spoke with US Col Derek Harvey about the Sahwa -- mainly Sunni forces who were instrumental to reducing violence and who were among those targeted by the recently former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki:

    FORDHAM: Harvey thinks as many as a quarter of them [Sahwa]  fought alongside the Islamic State this year. He says that everything depends on the new government led by new Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi who will have...

    HARVEY: ...To work and legitimize local defense forces and empower Sunni-Arab political leaders of all stripes in these provinces.



    FORDHAM: Abadi's been in power for almost a week now and is making all the right promises. But political wrangling has stopped the appointment of an interior or defense minister. And Harvey says this plan won't work until there's tangible political progress here. Alice Fordham, NPR News, Baghdad.


    And then there's that issue, noted as an aside:  The country still has no Minister of the Interior or Minister of Defense.  There were none in Nouri's second term and the new prime minister has faced resistance and hostility to his nominees for the post -- resistance and hostility from Parliament.

    This is no time for these positions to be empty.

    Barack likes to say the government of Iraq (that the US installed) wants 'our help' but how can you help someone who repeatedly refuses to fill the posts that would protect their own country?

    The press isn't pursuing that question -- or any others -- because they're too busy rushing to support and encourage war.

    John Irish and Jason Szep (Reuters) note, "World powers backed military measures on Monday to help defeat Islamic State fighters in Iraq, boosting Washington's efforts to set up a coalition, but made no mention of the tougher diplomatic challenge next door in Syria."


    This was the big takeaway from the meet-up in France today.  Cassandra Vinograd (NBC News) reports Francois Hollande, the President of France, presided over a meeting of various world officials -- including US Secretary of State John Kerry -- in Paris in which they will supposedly address issues in Iraq.

    The only issue for them was the Islamic State and how to combat it with violence.  And while they talked, violence continued.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes, "Diplomats from 30 countries met in Paris today to discuss the Islamic State situation in Iraq. The Kurdish Peshmerga Ministry held its own meeting with representatives from seven countries. Attacks and battles left at least 86 dead and 22 wounded."

    Reuters quotes Hollande asking, "What is the threat?"

    Any notion that this was going to address real issues quickly vanished as it became obvious Hollande was not asking for input but being rhetorical.  Answering his own question, he declared, "It is global so the response must be global... Iraq's fight against the terrorists is also our fight. We must commit ourselves together -- that is the purpose of this conference."  All Iraq News notes he insisted the Islamic State is a "threat to world peace."  This despite the fact that, unlike France, the Islamic State has confined its war actions to Iraq and Syria while France has pretty much spun the globe.

    For years, the world has allowed things to worsen in Iraq until an Islamic State could be built and fostered.  Now they want to 'address' the product and not the conditions that produced it in the first place.

    That's never an answer.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "CBS just lost big in federal court"
    "While they plot in Paris, Sadr issues a statement"
    "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Peace Fake""
    "Hejira"
    "War on ISIL? (Workers World)"
    "Stop David Cameron's plan to join US bombing of Ir..."
    "Talking entry"


    "Medea The Gutter Queen of all Liars"
    "The year of the Cat?"
    "Barack the destroyer"
    "The Tonight Show"
    "Blurred lies"
    "That sad Medea Benjamin"
    "Shut up, Sikivu Hutchinson"
    "wise up, binoy kampmark"
    "Sad Medea Benjamin"
    "The Mindy Project"
    "Welcome Back"

    "So Michael Moore's disappointed in Barack again"
    "worst book of the century"
    "Avoid this book!"
    "New York Times has explosive exclusive!"
    "THIS JUST IN! NYT IMPLICATES SCI FI LEGEND!"
    "I moved"
    "Mindy Kaling"
    "Will we have a slice of Turkey?"
    "Scott Brown, shut up!"
    "Barack's speech fail"
    "The I.R.S. scandal"
    "Power ballads, story songs and Cher's blown opportunity"


    Saturday, September 13, 2014

    New York Times has explosive exclusive!

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

    IT TOOK A LOT OF HITS AND SLAMS FOR IT'S IRAQ WAR 'REPORTING' FROM 2002 AND 2003 (AND SHOULD HAVE FOR THE 'REPORTING' OF DEXY AND BURNSIE WHICH FOLLOWED) BUT THE GREY LADY IS COMING BACK!

    THE NEW YORK TIMES THIS WEEK HAS A WORLD WIDE EXCLUSIVE, A SHATTERING STORY OF DEATH AND A DEATH POSSIBLY CARRIED OUT BY A BELOVED INTERNATIONAL FIGURE.


    AS THEIR HEADLINE PROCLAIMS:

    "Doctor Who Worked on Joan Rivers Steps Down From Post at Medical Clinic"

    DOCTOR WHO!

    ONE OF THE MOST BELOVED SCI FI FIGURES OF ALL TIME!

    DOCTOR WHO HAS BEEN THE STAR OF A SHOW WHICH HAS PRODUCED NEW EPISODES EVER SINCE 1963.

    WILL HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEATH OF COMIC LEGEND JOAN RIVERS BRING DOWN THIS BBC DYNASTY?

    STAY TUNED TO THE NEW YORK TIMES FOR MORE GROUND BREAKING REPORTING!



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    The editorial board of the Macon Telegraph weighs in on Iraq -- apparently to demonstrate their brains are as soft as an overripe Georgia peach.


    All must come together and support US President Barack Obama's plan, declares a body determined to sport their ignorance.

    There is no plan -- just more of the same.

    Dissent is the hallmark of democracy.

    How sad but telling: Journalists who rush to give up freedom and to censor and bully others.

    They grow 'em mighty pathetic at the Telegraph.

    Most of all, the scared little puppies can't stop wimpering -- such as here: "We need our lawmakers to act and act quickly. This is a case of national security. We would caution the president about making statements about what we won’t do. As the evolving situation in Syria and Iraq has shown, there may come a time in the not-too-distant future when more American boots are needed on the ground fighting next to Iraqis and Kurds."

    You sort of picture them cowering in their own filth, don't you?

    What national security?

    Do the morons not even know how to listen?

    In the speech, Barack declared, "While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies."


    Where's the threat?

    In the horror porn fantasies of those who work for the Telegraph.

    Barack's unveiled plan turned out to be the same thing he was already doing but on a little bit wider scope.

    And how's that been working out?

    One sign of the failure of Barack's action would be membership in the Islamic State increasing.

    AP notes CIA spokesperson Ryan Trapani declared today that there had been rapid growth in IS membership since June and that they now have "between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria, up from a previous figure of 10,000."

    Not only have Barack's actions not reduced membership in the Islamic State, they also have increased it -- at a rate that not even Nouri managed.

    Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) grasps what the Telegraph's editorial board can't:

    Another President who fails to recognize how counterproductive war can be.
    In Iraq, there are 6 million Sunnis who, with every bombing against ISIS, will be pushed more and more into the extremists' arms, as they see the United States waging war against fellow Sunnis.
    In Syria, 60 percent of the country is Sunni, and bombing ISIS is likely to have a similar effect, further tearing that country apart. And if somehow the bombing "degrades" ISIS, it will serve to solidify Assad in power.


    Barack had a chance to offer something new and didn't.  What he's planning to do is the same things that have allowed the Islamic State to significantly increase their own membership.

    Even Ruth Conniff is dismayed.  And I believe she is (I know Matt is).

    But over at The Daily Warren -- excuse me, The Nation.  It just feels like The Daily Warren.

    There's something really sick about a political magazine grabbing onto politicians with all the desperation of a Jimmy Page groupie and running from one celebrity crush to another like a 12-year-old.

    If only Elizabeth Warren had a third nipple -- like Harry Styles! -- the staff of The Nation could serenade Warren with "What Makes You Beautiful."

    Instead, we're stuck with Leslie Savan and her tired horse face.

    Oh, I'm sorry.

    Is that the 'optics' Leslie rails against?

    Well you know what I don't like?

    I don't like the useless -- whether their name is Ralph Nader or Leslie Savin, I don't like 'em.

    And you're useless if, like Leslie, you whine that Barack's speech was reduced to 'optics.'  No, she doesn't know what she's writing about.  Some believe they have an excuse to avoid doing the work.

    Which is what she did: avoided doing the work.

    First,   the press did not dub Barack's suit 'tan.'

    The tan suit -- I have no idea if it's tan or not nor did I obsess over it -- check the archives -- came from Twitter and other social media as Barack was delivering his speech.

    The press even reported on that.

    Leslie missed it.

    She misses a great deal.  Such as, repeating someone else's criticism -- huge chunks of it -- is not doing any of your own work.

    She's so useless that she's written (and copied and pasted) a huge number of words whining about Maureen Dowd and others and how they covered the speech.

    What  Leslie never did?

    Write about the damn speech.

    We did.  We wrote about it last week when he gave it in the 'tan' suit or whatever.

    We wrote about it and we critiqued it.

    It's a week later and all useless Leslie and her ugly horseface can do is whinny in the words of others.

    Whether you agreed with Maureen Dowd or not, she's always one up on Leslie because Maureen puts her own thoughts in.




    Doing a slightly better job than Leslie is Zoe Carpenter who asks "Is the War on ISIS Illegal?"

    Zoe never took the time to weigh in herself -- an opinion writer at an opinion journal who can't share her own thoughts?




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "U.S.-U.K. GENOCIDE AGAINST IRAQ 1990-2012 KILLED 3..."
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "The media exists to sell war"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Is Barack headed for yet another embarrassment?"
    "Just another baby killed by Barack in Iraq"
    "Barack's now a baby killer in Iraq"
    "I Hate The War"
    "Time "
    "Non posted things"
    "Open doors "
    just leave me alone"
    "The Lamberts"
    "Slum lords"
    "It's fixed."
    "How much money do they need?"
    "Tell me the darn price"
    "Dee Jays learn the artist"
    "TV"
    "The attacks on Mindy Kalig"
    "joan's send off"
    "Lois Lerner belongs in jail"
    "Great Tweet"
    "A suggested reading or 2"
    "Biden's words bite him in the butt"
    "Was Denzel being serious?"
    "The Spread The Blame Around Coalition"
    "Tell it like it is, Mitt, tell it like it is"



    "THIS JUST IN! THE AWARD FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS GOES TO . . ."

    Sunday, September 07, 2014

    Tell it like it is, Mitt, tell it like it is



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

    2012 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE FOR THE GOP MITT ROMNEY DECLARED TODAY THAT HE WOULD HAVE MADE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O.


    NO S**T, MITT.

    YOUR DOG SEAMUS WOULD HAVE MADE A BETTER PRESIDENT -- AND THAT'S BEFORE OR AFTER TRAVELING 12 HOURS ON TOP OF THE CAR.

    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    Was John's speech supposed to be homework for Americans or was he attempting to communicate with them?

    Does no one know how to communicate in the administration?

    It's the show boating, the need to dandy up, that divorces them from the reality so many Americans live in.


    So the take away from the above is that, no, US Senator Dianne Feinstein, bombs alone won't change a thing.

    They'll change numbers -- they'll increase the numbers of the Islamic State.

    John Kerry needs to define what the non-military approach will be.

    The American people are left in the dark.

    The reason for that is, honestly, the White House still doesn't have a plan.

    It doesn't have a plan for war, it doesn't have a plan for diplomacy.


    No US troops should have been sent into Iraq in June.  Barack certainly shouldn't have announced this week he was sending even more into Iraq.  As Kristina Wong (The Hill) reported Tuesday, "President Obama has ordered 405 additional U.S. troops to Iraq on Tuesday, bringing the total of U.S. forces authorized there to more than 1,000, the White House announced Tuesday."




    I'm back on Gasoline Alley
    Where the smoke looks like a misty valley
    And the dotted hills where pills go down the wrong way
    In the service of the king and his kingdom too
    Oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh
    I was the man and the woman and the who-knows-who
    -- "Down The Wrong Way," written by Chrissie Hynde and Bjorn Yttling, first appears on Chrissie's new album Stockholm.




    But if you make the decision to send troops in -- and Barack did make that decision -- then you have already reviewed all options and you should know what you will be doing next.

    Otherwise, you're just sending troops in blindly and that's what Barack has done.

    And instead of presenting a mission, he's responded to each worsening by tossing more troops onto the fire.

    Shame on those -- in Congress, and across the US -- who accept this as a plan.


    Kristina Wong (The Hill) reported Friday morning, "Military officials are signaling that the fight against Islamist militants in Iraq could take years, raising the possibility of a new, open-ended military commitment that lasts beyond the Obama presidency.  Tony Blinken, the White House’s deputy national security adviser, says defeating the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) would require a long-term commitment."

    And that was before John Kerry gave the speech we noted earlier.  In it, his final statements include this, "It may take a year, it may take two years, it may take three years."


    A planned mission wouldn't be open-ended. 

    John Kerry grasped that in the Bully Boy Bush years when he was among those insisting there needed to be some form of benchmarks by which to measure whether Iraq was progressing or not.  He also once grasped the reality of war.  No longer.




    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
    "Video ~ Peak Inequality, Basic Income & the Emergi..."
    "Is it their reward or their punishment?"
    "Cindy Sheehan and Michael Parenti"
    "Charlie's Angels and Charlie's Angels Full Throttle"
    "Mistresses -- oh, that Dr. Karen Kim"
    "oh, noam, get real"
    "The Campaign Beings In Earnest"
    "Extant (Molly's memory)"
    "Details emerge on Extant"
    "Extant (Ethan's in danger)"
    "Mistresses"
    "Pretenders"
    "Cher and other things"
    "If he's lost Kim . . ."
    "THIS JUST IN! IT'S ABOUT TO GET 7 STRANGERS 1 HOUSE REAL UP IN HERE!"