Thursday, August 27, 2015

Cranky begs you to make it rain

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

CRANKY CLINTON FINALLY DROPPED HER LET-THEM-EAT-CAKE ATTITUDE AND STOPPED JOKING ABOUT HER E-MAIL SCANDAL.

BUT ONLY AFTER RUMORS THAT JOE BIDEN MIGHT RUN HAVE LEFT BIG DONORS EXCITED.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY DECLARED, "I'M A PRIVATE DANCER, A DANCER FOR MONEY, DO WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO, JUST A PRIVATE DANCER . . ."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:




A much more important gathering was recently covered by Al Jazeera.  This was an event that the Association of Muslim Scholars In Iraq held and out of it has come their "The 'Inclusive Iraq' Scheme: The Proper Solution for Saving Iraq and the Region."  We noted a section of it yesterday.  Who else is noting this, by the way?  It should be getting major attention.  Or does the western press believe attention on Iraq solutions is only warranted if its westerners offering solutions or 'solutions'?  At any rate, we'll note this section of the report:




  Finally, it is worth stressing that the aforementioned initiative details come within the framework of the following specifics and firm beliefs:
1. Full adherence to the independence of Iraq and its territorial integrity and the preservation of its identity. Its policies on development shall be based on the common interests of its citizens. The building of the modern state shall be in accordance with the necessary foundations, constitutionally, legally, economically, militarily, socially and culturally.
2. Commitment to the pluralistic approach and freedom of opinion, based on mechanisms that are consistent with and respect our values ​​and traditions.
3. Exclusion of political revenge mechanisms and allowing for justice. This should be based on a consensual agreement between Iraqis in order for it to take its course in preserving the rights, the lives and dignities and to prevent the events that took place and currently taking place from happening again.
4. Being aware that our tragedy in Iraq is not a tragedy of a certain group, race, region, governorate or any particular place. It is the tragedy of the homeland and the nation. Giving instant attention to partial problems that arise here or there should not affect seeing the whole picture of this tragedy.
5. Rights are not given, but acquired by uninterrupted effective acts, arduous efforts and great sacrifices. Identity is the product of pride in position, mission and mandate. It is not a favour given by anyone nor the result of effect of an action event, effect and reaction, however this may be painful, harsh and long.


6. Inspiring the spirit of resistance, uprisings, protests and popular revolts is crucial and necessary in determining our path towards change and deliverance.


On the subject of protests, this morning I noted that a woman had been stabbed in Baghdad at Friday's protest and this was apparently news to several people judging by e-mails -- not that a woman was stabbed but that a woman participated.

I'm looking at Arabic social media on the protests and often forget that many have to depend on reports in the English language from western media which apparently has yet to discover that women are taking part in these protests.


For those who were not aware of that, we'll offer this Tweet from Friday (a rare one to note women in the protests but women are there at every protest).











  • Let's stay with truths and note Kevin Sylvester's This Sunday Edition (CBC) which featured Emma Sky discussing Iraq and her new book  The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq.  Excerpt of the discussion about the 2010 national election:



    Emma Sky: And that national election was a very closely contested election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate in that election.  They'd become convinced that politics was the way forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and not violence.  To people who had previously been insurgents, people who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that election.  And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki, lost by 2 seats.  And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and no sectarianism.  And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.

    Kevin Sylvester:  People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.

    Emma Sky:  Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus.  And Maliki refused to accept the results.  He just said, "It is not right."  He wanted a recount.  He tried to use de-Ba'athification to eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes that they had gained.  And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat.  And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system about what to do?  So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the government for thirty days.  And he didn't think Allawi would be able to do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that was his recommendation.

    Kevin Sylvester:   Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden -- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will support and then they do a complete switch around.  What happened?

    Emma Sky:  Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to be there.  He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general who'd been there for year after year after year.

    Kevin Sylvester:  Chris Hill.

    Emma Sky:  And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia strongman. Maliki's our man.  Maliki's our friend.  Maliki will give us a follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.'  So it looks as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation.  And the problem -- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki.  People were very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian, that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national election."  So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him.  So when Biden made clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this caused a huge upset with Iraqiya.  They began to fear that America was plotting with Iran in secret agreement.  So they moved further and further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with Maliki.  And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya, they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war through the 'surge.'  But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him.  And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of the country by the end of 2011.  So during this period, Americans got outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp because they'd guaranteed his second term.

    Kevin Sylvester:  Should-should the Obama administration been paying more attention?  Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something.  This is a guy you definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq.  How much of what has happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration?  Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it -- not Hillary.]  How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is at their feet?


    Emma Sky:  Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010.  And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq.  She did appoint the ambassador [no, she did not] but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself.  You know, he understands identity more than many people.  He understands multiple identities and how identities can change.  He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British.  That's how things are."  So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war.  For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics -- the poisonous politics.  And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals.  He was determined he was never going to lose an election again.  So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process.  He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.]  He didn't pay them.  He subverted the judiciary.  And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!"  And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."  And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better. 




    The 2010 decision set the events in motion for Iraq's current (and ongoing) crises.

    We objected in real time.  We called for the vote to be respected.

    The western press ignored the vote, ignored the will of the people and treated it as normal that, following an election, the outcome was decided by a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement).



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Truth the western media misses day after day in Ir..."
    "Hillary and her security clearance"
    "Beauty & the Beast (breaking Cat and Vincent up)"
    "Bruce Willis is out . . ."
    "Who took the hammer to Hillary?"
    "joe scarborough's theory"
    "Tweet of the day"
    "Extant"
    "What have they done to Rachel Maddow?"
    "Social Security"
    "Extant Wednesday on CBS"
    "THIS JUST IN! FELON IN SHAM MARRIAGE BACKS HILLARY!"
    "Who does Mr. Lavender Marriage think he's fooling?"




  • Tuesday, August 25, 2015

    Who does Mr. Lavender Marriage think he's fooling?

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


    DID YOU HEAR THE 1 ABOUT THE FELON WHO STOLE 2 MILLION AND PLED GUILTY TWICE IN 2006?

    WAIT, IT GETS BETTER.

    DID YOU HEAR THAT HIS WIFE SUPPOSEDLY EATS TURKISH DELIGHT -- AND WE'RE NOT TALKING FOOD.

    YEAH, THAT GUY.

    HE WANTS TO TELL AMERICA WHAT TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

    HE INSISTS THAT CRANKY CLINTON'S CURRENT SCANDAL IS NOT A REAL SCANDAL.

    HEY, OLD FOOL, WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW YOUR WIFE'S EATING OUT WOMEN AND YOU'RE GOING DOWN ON MEN, WE MIGHT GIVE A DAMN.

    UNTIL THEN, JUST SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE.



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    One image may capture better than any other a feeling many Iraqis have regarding the leadership in the country.







    That's from the Kitabat website and 1/2 the face is current Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi while the other half is former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

    The accompanying article argues that Iraq is witnessing the struggle between Haider and Nouri -- both Dawa Party members, following Haider's announcement that the Vice President posts were being ended (Nouri al-Maliki is one of the three -- or was).  The article notes that Nouri cannot win the battle by depending on popularity.

    And that's a good call to make.  In 2010, when he lost the election to Iraqiya, before Barack Obama and the Iranian government rescued him and insisted he get a second term, there was a long line of people opposed to him publicly -- this included the National Alliance (Shi'ite political bloc), Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr and the leadership of the Dawa political party.

    The article argues that Nouri will try to seize control by utilizing the support he has from various Shi'ite militia groups including the Badr brigade and the League of Righteous.


    The League of Righteous should have been dismantled (others would argue their members should be in prison or executed for the reign of terror they carried out).  But they'r e not dismantled and, in fact,  Mohammed al-Zaidi (Niqash) just interviewed the leader of the League of the Righteous Qais al-Khazali last week:




    NIQASH: In the past few weeks you have made several statements about the need to change Iraq's political system from a parliamentary one to a presidential one. Could you explain what you're asking for and why?


    Al-Khazali: Today in Iraq we have big problems and everybody knows what they are – namely state services are problematic as are strategic projects and the level of unemployment as well as a raft of other things.
    The League of the Righteous believes that one of the main reasons for these problems is the sectarian quota system in Iraq. To resolve this we have suggested that a presidential system be introduced because at the moment, the Prime Minister cannot choose the members of his government. He must bend to the will of the different blocs represented in Parliament who impose candidates upon him. There's a bad atmosphere between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and its had a negative impact on the government’s work. That is why we make such demands. But such sensitive issues must be left to the Iraqi people to decide.

    NIQASH: But in making these requests, some critics have said that what you are really doing is opening the door for the return of former Iraqi prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.





    Al-Khazali: We do not have any special relationship with Nouri al-Maliki. For example, we were not given any special positions within his government when he was in charge. Additionally we didn't join his electoral bloc during elections; in fact, we contested the elections as a completely separate list.







    That's an utter lie.

    First, let's drop back  to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:




    This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."



    Long before the Afghanistan-did-he-desert-was-he-captured melodrama, Barack had already negotiated with terrorists.  The League of Righteous are terrorists.  And Barack released their leadership from US military custody after he entered in a deal with them to release the 5 British citizens.

    The League was very public to the Iraqi press about the fact that they had a deal with the US government.  They also went back on the deal for a period of time -- releasing only 1 living British citizen and the corpses of three, holding onto a forth corpse while insisting Barack hadn't lived up to all of his part of the deal.

    It's a deal the American people should have known about.

    To this day, the White House has never publicly been pressed to be honest about that deal or even to acknowledge it.

    But several White House friends -- including ______________ -- have insisted to me over the years that the US just released the terrorists from military custody and that didn't prevent Nouri al-Maliki, who was prime minister from 2006 to 2014, from prosecuting them for their crimes in Iraqi courts and that, the argument (or lie) goes, was what was supposed to happen.

    So, by that logic, Nouri's done a great deal for the League, he's kept them out of prison and out of the Iraqi courts.

    He also, when no political organization was supposed to have an active militia, brought them into the political process -- despite his knowing (as did everyone) that the League was nothing but an armed militia.

    They participate in politics now as a result of Nouri.

    So Qais al-Khazali is both a thug and a liar.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq and the press that (mis)covers it"
    "Hejira"
    "Barry O and the Dronettes"
    "As the kids say, 'burn!'"
    "USA Today editorial board spanks Hillary"
    "She's lost Henneberger"
    "Idiot of the week: The felon Robert Creamer"
    "Barack's definition of transparency?"
    "Diana"
    "More lies from Hillary?"
    "the crook robert creamer and his 'wife' jan schakowsky"
    "She's lousy"
    "Poverty"
    "THIS JUST IN! THE CHORUS AGAINST CRANKY CLINTON GROWS!"
    "Defiant Cranky says the talk proves how popular she is"








    Sunday, August 23, 2015

    Defiant Cranky says the talk proves how popular she is

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

    SUNDAY TV WAS DOMINATED BY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CRANKY CLINTON CAN SECURE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION WITH HER SCANDAL STILL UNRESOLVED.

    HOWARD DEAN, JERRY BROWN AND MARTIN O'MALLEY WERE AMONG THE DEMOCRATS PONDERING CRANKY'S SCANDAL.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY SNORTED, "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY.  I'M THE TALK OF THE COUNTRY.  THAT'S HOW I'LL SEW THIS UP."



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    Starting with violence and oil.




  • Last week, 's forces announced dozens of dead gunmen in Alas/Ajil oilfields (released pics), not a single 'journalist' wrote a article.




  • One of many stories not covered.  If there's news value in it, the only news value in it -- one that this Shi'ite propagandist Haidar Sumeri will never grasp -- is the strides that the Iraqi government will take to protect oil while the citizens are left to fend for themselves.


    Dropping back to Thursday's snapshot:



    In other poor visuals, Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi made a special visit today.

    Aref Mohammed, Ahmed Rasheed, Isabel Coles and William Hardy (Reuters) note, "Hundreds of locals recently blocked some entrance to Iraq's giant southern West Qurna-2 oilfield, operated by Russia's Lukoil, demanding jobs in a sign of the growing challenges facing foreign firms operating in the south."  So Haider rushed there today in an attempt "to reassure Lukoil."














  • PM Al-Abadi visits West Qurna 2 in Basra and adopts new measures to enhance security for international oil companies                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            




  • Time and again, Haider puts oil first, ahead of the Iraqi people.



    An now dropping back to the April 15th snapshot:




    This morning, Arwa Damon (CNN -- link is video and text) reported on the situation in Anbar Province's Ramadi noting that deputy provincial council head Falih Essawi is issuing "a dire, dire warning" as the Islamic State advances.

    Arwa Damon:  ISIS forces, it seems, early this morning managing to enter the outskirts of the city of Ramadi from the east.  This now means that ISIS is fighting on the east.  ISIS advanced from the north -- taking over three towns from the outskirts there over the weekend.  The routes to the south already blocked off.  The city basically under siege except for the western portion that is still controlled by forces, by government forces, but that is wavering as well.




    Sky News notes the three areas taken, "The militant group took the villages of Sjariyah, Albu-Ghanim and Soufiya, in Anbar province, which had been under government control, residents said." Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) observed:


    Pentagon officials stopped short of saying the city was on the brink of falling. But they didn’t sound confident it would hold, either.
    “The situation in Ramadi remains fluid and, as with earlier assessments, the security situation in the city is contested. The ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] continue to conduct clearing operations against ISIL-held areas in the city and in the surrounding areas of Al Anbar province,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Army Maj. Curt Kellogg, a said in a statement, using the government’s preferred acronym for ISIS. The Coalition continues to coordinate with ISF forces and provide operational support as requested.”



    AFP's Jean Marc Mojon and Karim Abou Merhil sound out various Middle East experts about the prospects for victory in Anbar.  We'll note this section:

    “Anbar, and especially Fallujah, is like Asterix’s village,” said Victoria Fontan, a professor at American University Duhok Kurdistan, referring to an unconquerable town in the French comic book series.
    The province is packed with experienced fighters and while some Sunni tribes have allied with the government, others are fighting alongside ISIS or sitting on the fence.
    Local knowledge is seen as key to retaking territory along the fertile strip lining the Euphrates, where ISIS has inflicted severe military setbacks to the police and army since June.



    Iraqi Spring MC notes this takes place as calls for reinforcements of government troops to be sent to . . . Baiji.

    That's in northern Iraq, Salahuddin Province.  These reinforcements are being sent in to protect . . .  Well, not people.  There are people in Ramadi who need protection.  But the government forces going to Baiji are going to protect an oil refinery. 



    How did that work out?

    Does anyone remember?

    Oh, yeah, the Islamic State seized Ramadi -- which they still control today.

    But, hey, that refinery in Baiji, that oil refinery is safe.


    Iraq Times reports the reaction to citizens in Basra which was to protest Haider's visit. The activists noted that he traveled all the way to Basra to reassure Big Oil but he did not meet with a single local protester to address the concerns that have had them pouring into the streets for the last weeks.  The report notes that the British and US Ambassadors to Iraq had lobbied Haider to visit Basra to reassure Big Oil.  As Iraq Times also notes, just north of Basra is where a protester -- protesting against Big Oil -- was shot dead by security forces working for yet another foreign oil company in Iraq.

    There was a time when -- even under the despicable Nouri al-Maliki -- if foreigners killed an Iraqi citizen, it would be time for immediate arrests and a kangaroo trial.


    But in Haider's Iraq, foreign oil companies can kill protesters and the government doesn't even publicly object.


    Basra protesters are targeted in many ways.



























  • RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "The White House lost Ammar but has Ammar won a new..."
    "Mirror Mirror"
    "I'm Coming Out"
    ""Chain Reaction""
    "Workin' Overtime"
    "Swept Away"
    "Diana Ross' "Not Over You Yet""
    ""Love Hangover""
    "surrender"
    "Diana Ross"
    "Where Did Our Love Go"
    "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON CAN HANDLE LUKEWARM"
    "Cranky Clinton can handle low support"




  • Saturday, August 22, 2015

    Cranky Clinton can handle low support

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


    FROM A ONCE HIGH OF 50% SUPPORT, CRANKY CLINTON HAS FALLEN TO 39.9% OF LIKELY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED, "I CAN DO A LOT WITH 39/9% SUPPORT -- I WORKED WITH MUCH LESS TO CONTINUE MY MARRIAGE."


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    Let's start with the idiots.

    How stupid do you have to be to do this:



    retweeted




    Chutzpah: Jeb blaming Obama for W's failure in Iraq. Must have forgotten it was Bush-Cheney who blew it there. Now he wants a do over? Plz..



    Seriously?

    How much of a fool and moron is Robert Jolley?

    He's just a parrot for partisan spin, we get that.

    He's not about anything that actually matters.

    I oppose the ongoing Iraq War and have been speaking out against it publicly since 2002 in my offline life.


    What has Baby Cum Pants Jolley done?

    My tolerance for idiots is at an all time low.


    Don't you ever pretend you give a damn about Iraq and then quote all time whore John Podesta.

    Seriously, just stop Tweeting.

    There's no come back for you.

    Only other idiots will ever applaud you.

    You belong to a movement of mass stupidity.



    Dropping back to the March 28, 2007 snapshot:

    Interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner (KPFA's Guns and Butter) today, professor Francis Boyle discussed how a 2003 exploration of impeachment by the Democrats was cut short when John Podesta announced that there would be no introduction of bills of impeachment because it would harm Democrats chances in the  2004 election.  Speaking of the measures being applauded by much in the media, big and small, Boyle declared, "It's all baloney.  All they had to do was just do nothing and Bush would have run out of money. . . .  The DNC fully supports the war, that was made clear to Ramsey [Clark] and me on 13 March 2003 and nothing's changed."  John Podesta, former Clintonista, is with the Democratic talking point mill (that attempts to pass itself as a think tank) Center for American Progress -- with an emphasis on "Center" and not "Progress." 



    See you can't Tweet or reTweet Podesta on the topic of Iraq unless you're trying to get the blood on his hands onto your own.


    Here's David Swanson (in 2009, at Democrats.com) discussing Podesta's role in the Iraq War:


    Boyle and Ramsey Clark presented the case for impeachment to Democratic congress members on March 13, 2003, just days before the bombs hit Baghdad. Impeachment could conceivably have prevented over a million deaths. The congress members present accepted the validity of the case, but John Podesta and others argued that it would be better for Democrats in the next election to let the war happen. We saw this same cold blooded calculation, of course, in 2007 and 2008, as the Democrats controlled the Congress and claimed to "oppose" the war while keeping it going. While Clark argued for the political advantage of pursuing impeachment, Boyle declined to address that point, preferring to stick to the facts. Sadly, electoral arguments are almost the only thing most congress members care about, and human life is not even on the list.



    Need more?   Here's Boyle speaking to Dori Smith (Talk Radio Nation -- link is audio and transcript) from February 7, 2007:


    Francis A. Boyle: We just need one person to introduce the bill with courage, integrity, principles, and of course a safe seat. In Gulf War one I worked with the late great Congressman Henry B. Gonzales on his bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. We put that one in. I did the first draft the day after the war started. So in my opinion there is no excuse for these bills not to have been put in already. In fact, on 13 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers convened a meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to debate putting in immediate bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, to head off the war. There were draft bills sitting on the table that had been prepared by me and Ramsey Clark. And the Congressman invited Ramsey and me to come in and state the case for impeachment. It was a two hour debate, very vigorous debate, obviously all of these lawyers there. And most of the lawyers there didn't disagree with us on the merits of impeachment. It was more as they saw it a question of practical politics. Namely, John Podesta was there, Clinton's former White House chief of staff, who said he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and they were against putting in immediate bills of impeachment because it might hurt whoever their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. Well at that time no one even knew who their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. I didn't argue the point, I'm a political independent. It was not for me to tell Democrats how to elect their candidates. I just continued arguing the merits of impeachment. But Ramsey is a lifelong Democrat and he argued that he felt that putting in these bills of impeachment might help the Democrats and it certainly wasn't going to hurt them in 2004.



    So when the right thing could have been done, when the Iraq War could have been stopped before it started, when everything could have been changed, there was John Podesta arguing to destroy Iraq, to destroy the lives of the Iraqi people, so that Democrats could win the 2004 elections?  (For the record, the whore was wrong even when it came to electability: the Dems lost in the 2004 election -- they lost the presidency, the House and the Senate both remained under Republican control with Republicans increasing their seats -- in the single digits, but it's an increase -- in both houses of Congress.)


    Who's getting the do over?  John Podesta?

    Again, I've spoken out against the Iraq War all along.

    I'll be damned if some cheap whore tries to reTweet War Criminal John Podesta and pretend Podesta has some standing on the topic of Iraq.

    US House Rep John Conyers wanted to bring charges of impeachment and that would have ended it all.

    But there was John The Infected Whore Podesta saying don't impeach Bully Boy Bush because it would harm election chances in 2004.

    John Podesta is the last one to ever call bulls**t on anyone -- his entire life (and that of his brother Tony) has been nothing but bulls**t and people are dead as a result, millions of Iraqis included.

    Podesta should be in a holding cell waiting to be tried at The Hague.


    That stupid idiots on Twitter, caught up in their own bulls**t election, want to whore like Podesta is shameful.

    Here's Frances A. Boyles' statement on the 10th anniversary of the start of the illegal war:


    Since this is the tenth anniversary of the Bush war against Iraq, concerning Democratic Party support for it: On March 13, 2003 Congressman John Conyers convened an   emergency meeting  in Washington DC at a law firm right down the street from the White House on the Eve of War  to consider, discuss  and debate  my draft Bill to impeach Bush and Cheney to try to stop that war. He invited Ramsey Clark and me to come in and debate the case for impeachment. The debate was 2 hours long. He also  invited in about 40 top NGO  honchos affiliated with the Democratic Party, including John Podesta, for the debate. I will not name the rest of them here, but I will never forget these pro-war cowards and hypocrites for the rest of my life-- not including Congressman Conyers. At the end of 2 hours  of vigorous debating, we adjourned with my draft Bill of Impeachment sitting on the table. As Ramsey and I walked out of the building to take our separate cabs,  I turned to him  and said : “ Ramsey, I don’t understand it. Why didn’t those people take me up on my offer to stay here,   polish up my Bill of Impeachment immediately, and put it in right away to try to stop this war?” And Ramsey replied: “I think most of the people there want a war.” The Democrats  supported that war from the get-go. And this includes the Democratic National Committee. Podesta was there on their behalf and in the name of the DNC put the kybosh on my Bill of Impeachment designed to stop Bush’s war against Iraq.





    As Vanessa Williams says at the end of "Running Back To You," "Get the message?  Nuff said."




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Arrest warrants coming in Iraq?"
    "Her worst enemy"
    "And so it begins"
    "Must read article"
    "Illegal"
    "#CRAPFILMSDON'TMATTER"
    "Bad News Hillary"
    "Hillary: Queen of Non-Transparency"
    "Call the bookmaker"
    "What makes me laugh"
    "cranky clinton goes down"
    "How can anyone trust Barack?"
    "It's never enough for some people"
    "Hillary and the others who just don't get it"
    "Eric London exposes the fakes"
    "Al Gore"
    "That company she keeps"
    "They shred the Constitution"
    "it's neither funny nor cute, hillary"
    "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY GETS EXPOSED (BUT KEEPS HER CLOTHES ON!)"
    "Cranky Can't Stop Lying To You (Wise men say)"