Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon's love child

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
HE TOLD PEOPLE DURING THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES THAT HE THOUGHT THE REPUBLICANS WERE THE PARTY OF IDEAS AND HE WAXED ON AND ON ABOUT RONALD REAGAN.
 
SO IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE THAT DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY -- OR AS MICHELLE HAS TAKEN TO CALLING HIM, "DEMONCRAT" -- BARACK OBAMA HAS REVEALED TODAY THAT HE INTENDS TO 'FIX' SOCIAL SECURITY.
 
'FIX'?
 
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIAL SECURITY.  BUT THAT'S BARACK, BUYING INTO RIGHT-WING TALKING POINTS SO HE CAN DESTROY THE SAFETY NET.
 
WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARACK SAID, "HEY DO THEY STILL MAKE THE PISS-CHRIST?  I WAS THINKING I COULD CUT FUNDING FOR THE ARTS NEXT?"
 
 
Starting with the press.  As Kat noted last night, incoming and outgoing White House occupants love their fake news.  For some strange reason, people are looking the other way.  Carol Marin (Chicago Sun-Times) explained Sunday that she and her colleagues in the press have been "[d]eferential, eager to please, prepared to keep a careful distance" and that at Barack's 'news' conferences, "The press corps, most of us, don't even bother raising our hands any more to ask questions because Obama always has before him a list of correspondents who've been advised they will be called upon that day."  For those who've forgotten, the staged, fake 'news' conference has a direct relationship to the Iraq War.
 
"This is scripted," joked Bully Boy in the Mrach 6, 2003 press conference (link has text, audio and video) and it was one of the most pathetic performances by the press ever. It was so bad Saturday Night Live parodied it having Rachel Dratch play the dean of White House correspondents Helen Thomas trying to ask real questions and being prevented.  "How can you justify bombing innocent Iraqis for oil" led to Helen being chlorformed and she gets hit with a poisoned dart when she points out, "Mr. President, you have not dealt with the main issue!  You have yet to speak on the fact that half the people in this country do not want this war!"  You can see the dart at NOW on PBS when that bit of the skit was played during David Brancaccio's profile January 16, 2004 of Helen Thomas.  The New York Press offered, "After watching George W. Bush's press conference last Thursday night, I'm more convinced than ever: The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic. . . . Abandoning the time-honored pretense of spontaneity, Bush chose the order of questioners not by scanning the room and picking out raised hands, but by looking down and reading from a predetermined list.  Reporters, nonetheless, raised their hands in between questions -- as though hoping to suddenly catch the president's attention.  In other words, not only were reporters going out of their way to make sure their softballs were pre-apporved, but they even went so far as to act on Bush's behalf, raising their hands and jockeying in their seats in order to better give the appearance of a spontaneous news conference."
 
That was an important moment and the PRESS FAILED.  They failed in their jobs, they failed journalism, they failed the country and they failed democracy.  Was it just too difficult of a moment for them?
 
The press that caves today and play-acts a 'news' conference for Barack before he's even sworn in is telegraphing that they will not stand up for a free press any more than they did during the last eight years.  It is disgusting and it needs to be called.  Barack also needs to be called out for his fraudulent practices.  That is deceitful.  And he's demonstrating that he is just as craven as his predecessor.  The press wants to tie a bow around the Iraq War or -- more likely -- shove it in a Hefty trash bag and leave it out on the street, they want to insist they're done and the war is over.  That is not reality but it will benefit a president who never technically promised to withdraw all US troops (expect Barack to get a lot of "It depends what your definition of 'is' is" jokes in two years) and has no plans to end the illegal war. 
 
Staying with the responsibilities of the press, the US broadcast networks want to end their coverage from Iraq.  Paul J. Gough (Hollywood Reporter) reports that ABC will hand-off day-to-day coverage for the American Broadcasting Company to the BBC, increasing the ties between the two in sharing coverage that began in 1994: "ABC News president David Westin announced the change Wednesday morning in Baghdad in an email to employees obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.  He wrote in the email that Iraq would continue to be an important story for ABC News and 'we will devote all the resources necessary to do the story justice.'  ABC hopes that the expanded partnership will free ABC News' resources from daily stories."  When Brian Stelter (New York Times) reported on the move by ABC, CBS and NBC to pick up shop in Iraq and move their on-air correspondents to Afghanistan and Pakistan, he noted that a deal for BBC to pick up the slack for ABC might be in the offing but that no one was talking about that at the time.  And we'll note this from article: "Joseph Angotti, a former vice president of NBC News, said he could not recall any other time when all three major broadcast networks lacked correspondents in an active war zone that involved United States forces."
 
From the December 18th snapshot: "The Committee to Protect Journalists released their end-of-year analysis today and 'the deadliest country in the world for the press' is . . .  For the sixth year in a row, the 'honor' goes to Iraq".  Yesterday the International News Safety Institute (INSI) released their numbers and they "counted 109 casualties in 36 countries" -- guess who came in first?  Iraq with 16 deaths counted by INSI and they note, "A total of 252 news personnel, most of them Iraqi, have now died covering that conflict since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003."
 
Still on the issue of the press, but turning to Iraq's press.  Alive in Baghdad wonders, "Iraq's Free Press?" in this week's report. Nabeel Kamal and Huda Muhammad explain at the start of the report, "Since Baghdad fell in April 2003, all manner of newspapers have become commonplace.  Every opinion or issue has its own newspaper, and many Iraqis are wondering, is this what a free press looks like?"  They then ask Iraqis, "What is the impact of these newspapers since 2003?"
 
Male Iraqi newspaper vendor on the street: There are good and bad, some were good for people, although most of their topics are taken from the internet or satellite TV, and most of the news is fake, most of the time their talk is irrational.  It's hard to find in any of the daily newspapers something to educate people about elections, or cholera, or anything that helps people. 
 
Iraqi Male #2: There were still four newspapers before the regime's fall, then there were more coming.  I can say the number increased in a terrible way.  It's "chaos."  Chaos with unlimted freedom, and the difference was clear, due to the shortage of media.
 
One of the most specific critiques
 
Iraqi Male #3: We need opposition journalism, journalism that shows the truth.  We need journalism to show the suffering of this population.  I don't mean to keep talking about the bad things during the ex-regime, but also now there are many bad things, with any government's fall there are plenty of bad things that come to the surface or facilities that break down, so we need true journalism that can clarify the facts and show the destruction, the corruption that is happening, now we need this journalism to educate a new culture.
 
 
Their press fails them and refuses to provide the information they need.  So democracy never took hold in Iraq but the US did manage to export its press system.  Timothy Williams and Suadad al-Salhy (New York Times) note the upcoming provincial elections scheduled for January 31st, "Provincial councils are roughtly the equivalent of state legislatures in the United States, and the balloting for them is expected to correct underrepresentation in local governments among Sunni Arabs, particularly in areas where there has been heavy insurgent and sectarian violence, including Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala and Nineveh Provinces.  Sunni Arabs largely boycotted the 2005 provincial elections."  Provincial elections were declared a benchmark by the White House.  As 2007 came and went without them, they began pretending otherwise.  In September of 2007, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reported, "Largely gone from the president's speech Thursday was his January insistence that the Iraqi government meet 18 benchmarks and sort out its differences on the most divisive issues in Iraq.  In January, the talk was tough: 'America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced,' Bush said then.  'I've made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended.  If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.  Now is the time to act'."  This was the so-called "New Way Forward" and it was quickly abandoned.  Bully Boy will leave the White House this month and will do so before the January 31st elections are held (if they're held -- this is a puppet government that most recently called of New Year's Eve at the last minute -- damaging a local hotel industry that can't afford to absorb any more losses).  The same month Bully Boy was suddenly ignoring the benchmarks (his 18 benchmarks), the US Government Accountability Office was reporting, "The government has not enacted legislation on de-Ba'athification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament."  That's September 2007.  Let's jump a year forward to the September 16, 2008 snapshot for that day's US House Committee on the Budget hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus and this exchange is between US House Rep Lloyd Doggett and the GAO's Joseph A. Christoff:
 
Lloyd Dogget: All of us remember, except maybe President Bush, that in January of 2007, he selected the benchmarks, the guidelines by which to measure success, by which to measure victory in Iraq and when we sought an analysis so we would have an objective information instead of just the propaganda from the administration about whether those benchmarks had been met the Congress turned to the Government Accountability Office. And my recollection is that when you came out with your report on August the 30th of last year that you determined that . . . 11 of the 18 benchmarks that President Bush had set were not met. Is that correct?  
 
Joseph Christoff: Based on that prior report correct.  
 
Lloyd Doggett: Yes, sir.  And you found that of the 18 benchmarks the president set himself to measure success in Iraq that only three had been met as of August 30, 2007. Now this year, a year later, you did some evaluation again.  You did not evaluate every single benchmark but you really found that there had been very little progress in the year.  We know that fortunately fewer Americans are being killed there. But in terms of the objective of the Bush policy in Iraq, you had a grand amount of success in that they met one more benchmark than they had the year before, isn't that correct?      
 
Joseph Christoff: Well we didn't go through a benchmark by benchmark analysis but we did provide a report that talked about progess on the security front, the legislative front and the economic front in our June report.   
 
Lloyd Doggett: Right and I believe you found one more benchmark met than the year before.   
 
Joseph Christoff: Again we didn't do a benchmark by benchmark analysis, sir.  
 
Lloyd Doggett: Well if you look at the -- it may not have been called a benchmark analysis -- but you looked at some of the same factors you had the year before.  Just to begin to go through them, on the Constitutional Review Committee, you found that they'd formed the committee but the committee hadn't done anything.  Right?       
 
Joseph Christoff: And that's still true.         
 
Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met that.  On enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification you found that they had enacted the legislation but they hadn't implemented and of it, right?         
 
Joseph Christoff: That's correct.     
 
Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met the second benchmark.  On the question of enacting the hydrocarbon or oil legislation, you concluded that they had not met that again this year, did you not?          
 
Joseph Christoff: Correct, and no progess this year either.        
 
Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions -- that was the fourth benchmark President Bush had -- you found that that was only partially met.  Again they passed a law to allow the provinces to act but it hadn't been implemented.             
 
Joseph Christoff: Well on that one it will be implemented when provinces come together to form regions so that's  an open --             
 
Lloyd Doggett: Right, but we're not there yet.    
 
Joseph Christoff: Well no provinces have voted to form regions other than the KRG originally.          
 
Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation for an Independent High Electoral Commission you found only partially meeting it.  Again, they passed a law but hadn't implemented it.   
 
Joseph Christoff: The commission was established.  The provincial election law -- the date was established for October 1 but the implementing laws have not been enacted.   
 
Lloyd Doggett: Right. And they won't have the elections they've been promising us they'd have for a year in October.   
 
Joseph Christoff: October 1, they will not meet that date.
 
And even if the provincial elections take place January 31st, they will not be in all the provinces.  Iraq has 18 provinces.   Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reported in October, "Iraq's presidency council passed a critical law Wednesday to organize provincial elections that were originally scheduled for Oct. 1 and now are likely to be held sometime early next year. . . . Despite the law's stated deadline of Jan. 31 for elections in 17 of Iraq's 18 provinces, there may be a further postponement, according to the Independent High Electoral Commission."  Not only will the January 31st elections not take place in Kirkuk, they also will not take place in Irbil, Dohuk or Suleimaniyya.  Only 14 of the 18 provinces will be holding elections and, no, that's not meeting the benchmark even after Bully Boy is out of the White House.  Andrea Stone (USA Today -- link has text by Stone and USA Today video by Stone adn Rene Alston) reminds, "And there is the threat of violence. Two candidates have been killed in the northern city of Mosul, including one who was gunned down in a cafe on New Year's Eve. Friday, a suicide bomber killed 23 people at a campaign event south of Baghdad."
 

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Jeb says no to racist Senate

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
THE FORMER GOVERNOR WAS OVERHEARD TELLING FRIENDS, "I'VE BEEN GOVERNOR.  IF THIS CAROLINE KENNEDY THINKS SHE CAN BE APPOINTED INTO THE SENATE WITHOUT EVER HAVING HELD ELECTED OFFICE AND, HONESTLY, HAVING LESS OF RECORD THAN EVEN MY BROTHER, WHY THE HECK SHOULD I RUN FOR ANYTHING?"
 
IN OTHER SENATE NEWS, GRAND DRAGON HARRY REID IGNORED DWAYNE WICKHAM'S WARNING AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE QUALIFIED SENATOR ROLAND BURRIS TO BE SEATED.  DEMONSTRATING JUST HOW RACIST THAT DECISION WAS, THE ALWAYS TONE-DEAF WONKETTE (REMEMBER A CLICK KEEPS WONKETTA IN PANTIES AND PEANUTS) ATTEMPTS TO TURN THE WHOLE ISSUE INTO A JOKE THEREBY MAKING THE WORLD GLAD WONKS WAS AROUND TO OFFER 'INSIGHT' DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS.
 
 
A cursory examination of Senator Reid's political record shows, when it comes to promoting prospective candidates for office, Harry sure seems to prefer white people. The Nevada Senator even felt compelled to make the Sunday morning talk show circuit protesting, perhaps too loudly that the record is misleading, really he wants Americans to know he likes black folks just fine, and we ought not to read racism into his past decision to promote white candidates over blacks in every instance.
 
HARRY REID, THE DRY CLEANER CALLED TO SAY YOUR WHITE SHEETS WERE WASHED AND PRESSED AND THAT THEY GOT MOST OF THE BLOOD OUT OF THEM.
 
 
 
In Iraq, the latest attack on women's rights takes place under the guise of security, always under the guise of security.  AFP reports that ALL women are banned "from visiting a Baghdad district which is home to the city's most famous Shi'ite tomb" and why is that?  Because of the Sunday suicide bombing which, you may remember, Sam Dagher and Mudhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) maintained Monday was carried out by a man despite statements to the contrary.  So you've got confusion as to the gender of the bomber. But you've also got the fact that no men were banned from shrines and these bombings have been going on for over five years now.  Regardless of whether Sunday's bomber was or was not a woman, there's never been a similar effort to ban just men.  It's only women that get screwed over and always while being told that it's for the 'security' of all.  It's not for security.  It has nothing to do with security and when you grasp that this is a pilgrimage and that the pilgrims come from all over Iraq and outside of Iraq, this is blatantly offensive.  It is yet another effort to curtail the mobility of women and even in the 'logic' being offered, there's no excuse for it.  They have still not established the gender of Sunday's bomber.  Dagher and al-Husaini as well as LAT's Usama Redha and Kimi Yoshino provided statements by Iraqis outraged by the lack of security.  What you have is a band-aid measure that will not fix a damn thing but the government wants to scapegoat someone and, just like their allies in the US, the Iraqi government will gladly scapegoat women.  And Reuters is now reporting: "Initial reports said Sunday's bomber was female, although the government later said he was male."  But who's being barred from worshipping?  Monday, the United Nation's Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, Staffan de Mistura, made a point of condemning the attacks on pilgrims and decreeds bombings like Sunday's "appalling and unjustified crimes."  Will de Mistura call out the barring of women from worship or is he only interested in speaking up for the male pilgrims?
 
 
 Statistically female bombers really are not an issue (August 21st, LAT was reporting that "the number has jumped to 30" for the year 2008 -- still not a huge number) but if Iraq's so alarmed, well maybe they should pay more money?  "Awakening" Council members are also known as Sons of Iraq and they do have Daughters of Iraq but they pay them over 20% than they do men.  If they are saying female bombers are just so earth shattering and such a great threat, maybe they shouldn't have been so sexist and cheap?  Maybe they should paid women doing the exact same work the exact same amount?  And "they" is the US.  The US military set up that pay scale, the US military endorsed and embraced sexism.
 
Dropping back to the June 6th snapshot and Badkhen is Anna Badkhen who was filing that report for the San Francisco Chronicle::
 
Badken observes: "The US military pays each member $300 a month to man thousands of checkpoints throughout Iraq.  The Americans have credited Sons of Iraq for the waning Sunni insurgency and the decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad.  But questionable loyalties, often brutal conduct and an uncertain future make these groups a wild card in the ongoing effort to stabilize Iraq.  In April, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said these U.S.-funded militias may one day 'turn their guns on us'."  But that cautionary note is dismissed by the White House and, on Friday, Jim Frederick (Time Magazine) reported on the lastest twist to the "Awakening" Council: Female recruits!  US Capt Michael Starz told Frederick that "this is an employment program" and that "many of the women around here are widows and have no way of supporting themselves."  What a load of crap. 
 
If the concern was providing women with opportunities, the US could have done so long ago, could have fought to protect and ensure women's rights instead of installing radical thugs in the puppet government.  Most importantly, while the men make $300 a month, they're paying the women eight dollars a day -- that would be two dollars a day less than their male peers while claiming that there "are widows" who "have no way of supporting themselves."  The US government wants credit for 'creating' employment opportunites for Iraqi women but the US is paying them $2 less a day than the males while claiming that the women needs these jobs because they're supporting themselves and children.  Can you say "exploitation"? The real reason the US is using women, as Capt Starz readily admits is that female bombers are now an issue.  The women are being trained to 'inspect' and search other women.  And apparently that's not a job important enough to warrant equal pay -- at least not according to the US.  And the reason for including Senator Boxer's April remarks was to make it clear that the US government is the one paying the "Awakening" Council members, nothing has changed on that since April.  So the US government is sending the message in Iraq that a woman's work is worth 20% less than a male's. If that figure sounds familiar, Nancy Clark (Womens Media, link has audio) was noting that figure last year: "Women are paid 80 cents for every dollar men are paid and that does NOT include any part-time workers! If it did, it would be even lower."  The women in Iraq are being asked to do the exact things the males are being asked to do and the US government is sending the message that, for the same work, it is okay to pay a woman 80 cents while paying a man a dollar. Capt Starz tells Frederick that the increase in female bombers means, "It is a critical security issue that we find a way to have women searched at high-traffic areas."  It's 'critical' but, apparently, work but apparently not critical enough to offer the same rate of pay.  Repeating, US tax dollars are paying for this program.  (US Ambassador Ryan Crocker repeatedly bragged in April, before Congress, that paying them off meant attacks on US service members was down.  It's the hand-over-your-lunch-money-to-the-bully-and-you'll-be-safe-in-the-playground 'strategy.')  Should it be funded by the US?  I don't think so but as long as the US funds it, it certainly doesn't need to endorse gender discrimination.  But that is what's taking place. 
 
 
And, pay attention, the US put it in place.  That's June.  If today the puppet government wants to say it takes so long to search women (which AFP quotes them doing today), well then they damn well should have hired more women back in June.  The female suicide bombers result in alarmist headlines (here for US News & World Reports) because, "Oh goodness!  It's a woman!"  As if Pirate Jenny was an obscure character from a never heard of play?  As if Pirate Jenny doesn't have her roots in any revolution (including the American revolution).  But, "Oh no, it's a woman!"  So when a female bomber executes a bombing, it's a big deal to the press.  When a man does, it's a single sentence and there's no hand wringing or pondering WHY?????   It's obvious why and the one's pretending otherwise are the same ones pretending that something good can yet come from this illegal war.  And it's pretty obvious that there is HUGE sexism involved in the coverage.  This summer Time offered up "The Mind of a Female Suicide Bomber."  I'm sorry, are female bombers unheard of in illegal wars and occupations?  They become the norm.  And pretending otherwise is not only historically ignorant and sexist, it's damaging to anyone's grasp of what is actually taking place on the ground in Iraq.  They're attempting to make it some sort of pathological sickness in the minds of some woman when this is a natural response to a people occupied, under attack and prevented from self-governance.  There's nothing pathological about it.  Historically, it is a common response.  Mythologically, even more so.  Will Time next offer us "The Mind of Areto"?  Was there any difference in Areto attempting to avenge the murder of Hippolyte and Iraqi women today attempting to avenge the murders of their famillies?  Aztec mythology includes many similar examples, such as La Llorona who acts to avenge the murders of her children.  It's really disgusting that we rush to pathologize a normal response on the part of women that has been historically charted and culturally taught.  The sickness is not inside the women in Iraq who decide to wear a bomb, the sickness is the illegal war and continued occupation and you have to historically and culturally ignorant or else a liar who hopes others are historically and culturally ignorant to push these women's responses off as something unheard of and completely unexpected.
 
By contrast, think about the "biggest" Iraq "news."  Meaning the tid-bit that caught everyone's attention and produced water cooler talk.  A reporter throws his shoes.  A male reporter.  He had a thriving career.  He had to know he was risking throwing that away.  Did we get "Inside the Mind of the Shoe Tosser"?  No.  No, there was never an effort made to pathologize him (or any male suicide bombers, for that matter).  All the clucking is dishonest and needs to stop.  Those doing it are either liars or the most uneducated and uninformed people in the world. Grasping that reporters are, for the most part, glorified general studies majors, World Civ is taught for a reason.  It's not a set of facts to be remembered, there are lessons to impart from it.
 

Posted by at No comments:

Harry Reid flashes his true colors

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID AWOKE THIS MORNING AND RUSHED AROUND GRIPING TO LANDRA GOULD REID, "I TOLD YOU I WANTED A GOOD, CLEAN, FLAT ONE.  ALL I SEE IN THE CLOSET ARE FITTED!"
 
FINALLY HARRY REID FOUND A WHITE SHEET TO HIS LIKING AND WORE THAT TO THE SENATE TODAY.
 
 
 
"BURN A CROSS ON HIS YARD!" HOLLERED THE WHITE SHEET CLAD HARRY.  "THAT'S WHAT WE DO IN SEARCHLIGHT, NEVADA!"
 
AS BURRIS WALKED AWAY, HARRY REID COULD BE HEARD HOLLERING, "WOOP-DEE-DEE! I HATE THE COLOREDS."  WHEN TOLD PRESS WAS PRESENT, HARRY REID MAKE A BIG TO-DO ABOUT RUNNING AWAY THEN RETURNING WITHOUT THE SHEET OVER HIS HEAD, APPROACHING THESE REPORTERS AND ASKING, "SAY, WHO WAS THAT RACIST IN THE SHEET DOING ALL THAT YELLING?"
 
 
 
Today the US Embassy in Baghdad held their grand opening ceremony.  Missy Ryan, Peter Graff, Tim Cocks (Reuters) report that John Negroponte (Deputy US Sec of State, former US ambassador to Iraq) and Jalal Talabani (President of Iraq) were on the guest list for the highly exclusive get-together -- well the Embassy is in the highly fortified Green Zone and Al Jazeera notes the "tight security". The three rocked rocked the house with nearly one-thousand additional guests.  The Embassy's press releases brags, "The largest American Embassy structure to date, its scale reflects the importance of the U.S.-Iraq bilateral relationship.  Construction began in 2005 and was completed in 2008 at a total cost of $592 million." $592 million would prevent a huge number of home foreclosures here in the US, but, hey, at least they didn't try to hide the cost today, right?  Oops, they did try to hide the price tag.  CNN plays party pooper informing that the $592 million was "the original price tag" but "the cost could end up $144 million higher" according to a 2007 Congressional report.
 
The Embassy notes that the guests gather to watch the US flag being raised by six Marines with music provided by the Army's 4th Infantry Division Band.  That seven-person band is made up of "Commander, Iraq and Texas, Steadfast and Loyal Chief Warrant Officer Robert Nixon," "Commander, Fort Carson Colorado, Fit For Any Test Chief Warrant Officer Marvin Cardo," "First/Sergeant/Enlisted Band Leader, Fit For Any Test First Sergeant Jeremy Smelser," "Chief; Plans, Operations & Training Division/Rock Band Vocalist/Drum Major Sergeant First Class Dewayne Butcher," "Fit For Any Test, 'Nuf Said Sergeant First Class Troy Hascall," "Bringer of Rock, Burner of Things, Thrower of Towels, Fit For Any Test Sergeant First Class Sean Kerley" and "Trumpet Player, Chief, Logistic & Resource Management Division Sergeant First Clas Henry Reyna"
 
US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker went with a dark suit for the occassion and used the standard GOP red tie for a splash of color while Jalal Talabani demonstrated, that fatty arteries or not, he's still going to eat what he wants and be damn proud of it.  Which is how he turned a dark coat into a mumu.  Well done, Jalal!  Jalal knows the staff of the Mayo Clinic will suck the fat out of those arteries as often as necessary. Party like it's January 2007, Jalal! John Negroponte decided to indulge his Indiana Jones fantasy by wearing a hat (which he did remove for the US national anthem and the flag raising).  And that was just outside!!!  Tom A. Peter (Christian Science Monitor) drops the 411 on all the wack goings on including who played "the diplomatic equivalent of a Wal-Mart greeter": "A US Army lieutenant colonel".  Peter explains that the embassy has a schoolhouse; however, no need to worry that cramped the party mood today: "Although it's currently occupied by coalition forces representatives, embassy officials hope that one day, when the situation here normalizes, Iraq will be a family-friendly posting for diplomats. Just how far off that day is, embassy spokespeople are not willing to speculate".  Alaa Majeed (UPI) points out, "But the transfer does not suggest the Iraqi government is competent beyond the walls of the Green Zone, which houses most of the state ministries.  The Green Zone, since 2003, has split the capital, Baghdad, in two and emerged as a symbol of the inability of the government to bring dignity to the Iraqi people."   
 
Deborah Haynes (Times of London) describes the backdrop to Crocker's speech, "As he spoke, the sound of helicopters buzzed overhead, a reminder of the ongoing US military presence in Iraq despite the shift in power. All US forces in the country came under the authority of the Iraqi Government on January 1 after a UN Security Council resolution authorising their presence expired."  Talabani may have hit the party punch a little too hard because RTT quotes him declaring the US Embassy "will searve as a model for other peoples of the eastern world."  Declared . . . or warned? Apparently Negroponte was hitting the party punch as well which is why Reuters quotes him stating, "It is from here men and women, civilian and military, will help build the new Iraq."
 
And maybe Dick Cheney, president of vice, started celebrating the opening of the embassy early because "drunk" would probably be an improvement over "liar" which is how he came off yesterday on CBS' Face The Nation (link has text and video) as he insisted of Iraq, "I think we are close to achieving most of our objectives. We've seen a significant reduction in the overall level of violence; it's lower now than virtually anytime since we've been there in the spring of '03. We've seen the elimination of one of the world's worst regimes. We've seen the Iraqis write a constitution and hold three national elections. We've now entered into a strategic framework agreement with the Iraqis that calls for ultimately the U.S. completion of the assignment and withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. All of those things I think by anybody's standard would be evidence of significant success. And I think we're very close to achieving what it is we set out to do five years ago when we first went into Iraq."  The never met the benchmarks, Cheney, the ones defined by the White House.  Two years later and they still can't claim to have met the benchmarks for progress -- as defined by the White House.  These weren't longterm benchmarks.  These were benchmarks they were actually supposed to have completed at the end of 2007.  Two years later and they never managed to meet them.  You can fudge it and say "partial" (as the White House did) but, for example, a de-de-Baathification law that not only provides no oversight but is never implemented.  And if you're not grasping the reality of those benchmarks -- which the White House has treated as open-ended and the press has gone along with that lie . . .  May 16, 2007, Democratic Policy Committee, "In September, the Iraqi government publicly committed to meet a series of political benchmarks by the end of 2006 or early 2007, for advancing the national reconciliation process, including measures for amending the constitution; holding provinical elections; reforming de-Baathification laws; regulating the oil industry; and disbanding sectarian militas."  Dick Cheney wants to talk 'improvement,' refer to the benchmarks set by the White House and honestly tell the American people what was achieved. 
 
And on the issue of getting honest about Iraq, Condi Rice, get honest.  December 18, 2008 the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform issued [PDF format warning] "MEMORANDUM Re: The President's Claim that Iraq Sought Uranium from Niger".  Background, there was no attempt by Iraq to obtain yellow-cake uranium from Niger.  Former US Ambassador Joe Wilson went to great lengths to explain that fact and was 'thanked' by having his wife Valerie Plame outed as an undercover CIA agent. Bully Boy LIED in his 2003 State of the Union speech and also in a September 12, 2002 speech and a September 26, 2002 speech.  The September speeches  July 8, 2003, Bill Hemmer (CNN) spoke with Joe Wilson:
 
 
HEMMER: We'll take that answer as a bit of a foundation for this interview. Listen to what Condoleezza Rice said about a month ago, early June on "Meet the Press." I'm quoting right now. She says, "We did not know at the time -- no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels in the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery" -- Condoleezza Rice back on June 8. You say that is not possible. Why not?
 
 
WILSON: Well, when I was at the National Security Council, and before I wrote my piece for "The New York Times," I actually checked with very senior officials of the National Security Council from the time I was there, as well as very senior officials in the vice president's office just to refresh my memory.
 
 

MR. RUSSERT: That was in January. And in June -- June 8 -- you were on MEET THE PRESS; I asked you about that, and this was your response.

(Videotape, June 8, 2003):

DR. RICE: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew -- that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken.

(End videotape)                

MR. RUSSERT: "No one in our circles." That has proven to be wrong.       

DR. RICE: No, Tim, that has not proven to be wrong. No one did know that they were forgeries. The notion of the forgeries came in February or in March when this was--when this came to the CIA. It is true that we learned, subsequent to my comments to you, that Director Tenet did not want to stand by that statement. And I would never want to see anything in a presidential statement -- speech -- that the director of Central Intelligence did not want to have there.

And I'm the national security adviser. When something like this happens, I feel personally responsible for it happening because it obscured the fact that the president of the United States did not go to war over whether Saddam Hussein tried to acquire yellow cake in Africa. He went to war over a threat from a bloody tyrant in the most volatile region of the world who had used weapons of mass destruction before, and was continuing to try to acquire them. And so, of course, this should not have happened.

 

That's all American has because as the Committee On Oversight and Government Reform note, Condi refused to provide them with testimony -- repeatedly.  At one point Alberto Gonzales (then US Attorney General) showed up allegedly offering remarks on her behalf and, in that capacity, Gonzales insisted Condi stated the CIA cleared the inclusion of the uranium claim in both September 2002 speeches. Not true.  The Committee explaines John Gibson ("Director of Speechwriting for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council) testified that "Michael Gerson, chief White House speechwriter, and Robert Joseph, the Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense at the NSC" were pushing to include it in the September 12, 2002 speech and the CIA objected. More importantly for Condi, this section of the memo:

 

On September 26, 2002, President Bush delivered remarks in the White House Rose Garden urging Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq.  During an interview with the Committee, Jami Miscik, the Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA, stated that NSC officials "woulnd't take [the uranium claim] out of the speech." As a result, she was asked to explain directly to Dr. Rice "the reasons why we didn't think this was credible."  Ms. Miscik stated that "[i]t was clear that we had problems or we at the most fundamental level wouldn't have been haveing the phone call at all."  According to Ms. Miscik, the CIA's reasons for rejecting the uranium claim "had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts" before the call, and Dr. Rice was "getting on the phone call with that information."  Ms. Miscik told Dr. Rice personally that the CIA was "recommending that it be taken out."  She also said "[i]t turned out to be a relatively short phone call" because "we both knew what the issues were and therefore were able to get to a very easy resolution of it."

 

So would Condi like to amend her public statement: "We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles -- maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew -- that . . ."?  She clearly did know.  The Deputy Director of Intelligence told her.  Is Condi going to be pressed on that before she leaves the State Dept?
 
 
Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II Truest statement of the week III A note to our readers Editorial: The bum works for you TV: Head Games The attacks on Senator Roland Burris Boy, Did He Get A Wrong Number Roundtable This week's Bronze Boobies Complaint Dept. Ty's Corner Idiot of the week Highlights Third Estate 2008 archives by week Third Estate 2006 archives by week Third Estate 2005 achive by week

Posted by at 1 comment:

Saturday, January 03, 2009

The Princess Tiny Meat Chronicles

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





PRINCESS TINY MEAT'S SUPPORTERS REPEATEDLY INSIST THAT BARACK CANNOT BE CRITICIZED UNTIL HE GETS INTO OFFICE.



SINCE THE ELECTION, HE'S CAVED ON THE TREATY MASQUERADING AS A STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT, HE'S BEEN SILENT ABOUT THE ASSUALT ON GAZA, HE'S NOMINATED LESS WOMEN TO HIS CABINET THAN THE CURRENT WHITE HOUSE OCCUPANT, HE'S DONE HIS REACH-AROUND WITH HOMOPHOBIC RICK WARREN AND HE'S GONE ON YET ANOTHER VACATION.AND YET BARACK CANNOT BE CRITICIZED.



CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC IN THAT?



BARACK CANNOT BE CRITICIZED UNTIL HE IS SWORN IN, INSISTS MARKOS AND THE OTHER SQUEAKY-VOICED DWARFS WHO LIKE LIKE JAUNDICED-FACED WOMEN, BUT BARACK CAN BE PRAISED BEFORE HE'S SWORN IN.



AT THE SO-CALLED "INDEPENDENT" OF LONDON, RUPERT CORNWELL PISSES HIS TIGHTY-WHITEYS AS HE GETS MORE AND MORE EXCITED ABOUT HOW BARACK -- EXCUSE US, "THE COMING OF BARACK"!" -- IS LIKE FDR! OR JFK! OR . . .



RUPERT PANTS AND PANTS AND FINALLY JIZZES IN HIS Y-FRONTS.



REMEMBER, BARACK COULDN'T BE CALLED OUT IN THE PRIMARY BECAUSE IT WAS (A) RACIST AND (B) HE WAS JUST SAYING WHAT HE NEEDED TO GET THE NOMINATION. BARACK COULDN'T BE CALLED OUT IN THE LEAD UP TO THE GENERAL ELECTION BECAUSE WE 'HAD' TO HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. NOW IT'S AFTER THE ELECTION AND THE GIRLY BOYS LIKE MARKOS (WHO SPENT YEARS SLAMMING AND SLIMING ALL DEMOCRATS BEFORE HIS SUDDEN 'CONVERSION' IN NAME ONLY) STILL WON'T LET PRINCESS TINY MEAT BE CRITICIZED.



IT MUST BE HARD FOR THE BLOGGER BOIZE TO BE SUCH LIMP DICKS WORSHIPPING AFTER TINY DICKED BARACK.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



It's the new year so the press would traditionally contribute their 'looking back' pieces. But why do that and be bound by the facts when it's so much more 'creative' to look to the future and pen fantasies? In today's Washington Post, Anthony Shadid decided to inform that, "The war in Iraq is indeed over"; however, events on the ground begged to differ. Even ten years ago, a reporter trying to do what Shadid has done (war over by press fiat!) would have been the laughingstock of the press corps. Such are the times that Shadid is actually 'outshined' by the actions at another outlet. Leila Fadel. Yeah, she's back in Iraq. And offering all the 'value' and 'pertinence' as Yvette Mimieux did when she decided to team up with Ali Akbar Khan because what the world needed then (1968) was more bad music with poetry (Baudelaire) read over it badly. Flowers of Evil was what those 'geniuses' ended up with and it might as well be the title of Fadel's latest which contains this hidden 'gem': "It's difficult, however, for hope to return so quickly after so much bloodshed." Fadel is, no doubt, very proud of that line just as Yvette knew Flowers of Evil would set the world on fire. But, for the record, bad poetry doesn't have a damn thing to do with journalism. Fadel might try to squeeze that sentence into some sort of crack-pot, Chicken Sop for the whatever but it doesn't belong in reporting.



But we're not getting reporting, we're hearing the sounds of the Up With People singers warming up as they prepare for the ultimate wave of Operation Happy Talk. "There's no doubt," insists Fadel straining to hit notes beyond her range -- but, in fact, reporting is all about doubts. Reporting is all about questioning. Save this garbage for your EST seminar (Erhard Seminars Training) because it's quackery, it's not reporting.



Doubt it? Here's Fadel seeing 'change,' "U.S. officials already have moved out of Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace, which they'd used as their headquarters since U.S. troops took control of Baghdad, and are occupying a brand new, sprawling 104-acre U.S. embassy complex that's America's largest in the world." And this tells us what, Fadel?



It appears to tell us that the largest Embassy in the world is preferred to Hussein's musty, old castle. It appears to tell us that, as was stated long before construction on the Embassy began, the US would move into the Embassy as soon as it was possible. Delays came about because shoddy work was done. And, no, not all of it has been fixed. But those are details that escape Fadel who writes as if she's willing McClatchy's Baghdad operation to shut down. Leila, thinking "happy thoughts" might have allowed Peter Pan to fly, but there's no evidence to suggest it will do the same for a news outlet.



Once upon a time, reporters were expected to deal in facts. Today, it's all word games. Could someone give 'em all Scrabble for their down time and instruct that they practice their trade at all other times? Chief among the foreign outlets needing to unwrap a Scrabble board: AFP. The agency's Benjamin Morgan offers a lede about how Iraq's airspace ("a swathe" of it) is being handed back to it by the US. A swathe? Over 29,000 feet and higher was already controlled by Iraq. Thereby explaining that amazing space program al-Maliki launched. What? He didn't launch one? No, of course not. And it doesn't mean a damn thing that 29,000 to 24,000 feet were returned to Iraq as the new year began. Why is that? AFP quotes Amer Abduljabbar Ismail (Minster of Transportation) stating that "the complete control of our airspeace will not be finished until 2011, when the US military leaves." Poor, deluded, sick liar. The US isn't leaving in 2011 and, if they did, Iraq having control of it's air space wouldn't mean a damn thing because, as was repeatedly revealed in Baghdad press conference after conference this fall, Iraq air force will not be ready in 2011. They freely admitted -- American and Iraqi spokespeople -- that Iraq would require the US well past 2012.





So many novelists, so damn few reporters. It's as though the 90s trend which found the 80s literary set -- Jay McInerney, Tama Janawitz, Bret Easton Ellis, Jill Eisenstadt, et al -- invading the feature profile resulted in a serious case of creative envy among the press corps. (I know and like Jay and will note that he had showed true talent in non-fiction writing. I know others who attempted that feat and will pointedly not bother to make a similar statement regarding the 'merits' of their contributions.)



The Green Zone and Basra airport 'handovers' are worth one sentence outside the real estate listings. If that. Timothy Williams (New York Times) wisely does not attempt to make it the thrust of his report and includes some details on the area that is thought to be the one to watch (including thought to be the one to watch by Barack's transition team):





Mosul, located about 250 miles north of Baghdad, is in a region contested by Sunni arabs and Kurds, and where Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is led by foreigners, has been active.

The city's Christian minority was the focus of repeated attacks last year, forcing thousands to flee, although many have returned.Nineveh Province is also the buffer zone between the central government in Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdistan region in Iraq's far north. About 5,000 American soldiers are stationed there.



Reuters reported this morning that tribal Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah Salih was entertaining a group of "Sunni Arab tribal leaders" for lunch when a bomber arrived and detonated his or her bomb -- killing his/herself and wounding somewhere between 42 and 100 people (depending on the source). And the death toll? BBC reports at least 30 dead. Anthony Shadid and Saad Sarhan (Washington Post) report, "Iraqi officials said the assailant, a relative of the sheik, was a familiar presence around the house, making it easier for him to pass unsearched through an entrance usually reserved for women in the conservative town of Yusufiya, about 12 miles south of Baghdad." And, yes, it does have to do with upcoming elections (scheduled for January 31st). Sami al-Jumaily (Reuters) explains the get-togehter was "a feast for Sunni Arab electoral candidates and tribal leaders". When you read the garbage about war over and the latest waves of Operation Happy Talk get up to the neck, remember what the 'reporters' forget: The UN has warned repeatedly that violence will increase as the provincial elections approach. Even the US State Dept has echoed those warnings.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The never-ending transition"
"Truce by press fiat!"
"I Hate The War"
"Green Beans and Tomatoes Casserole in the Kitchen"
"Weekend"
"additional thoughts"
"the truth versus the whoring liar"
"UNAMI, Bill Moyers, Janis Ian, Michael Winship"
"2009"
"2008, 2009"
"Michael Winship and Bill Moyers stumble upon the truth"
"Quick thoughts"
"Gaza, Janis Ian, more"
"THIS JUST IN! THE UNITY TRAIN KEEPS ROLLING"
"Unity train keeps on rolling . . ."
"The Common Ills"
"The Common Ills"
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Unity train keeps on rolling . . .

 BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
 
OVERHEARD AT THE OFFICES OF BARACK'S TRANSITION TEAM, "HEY, MAYBE BARACK COULD GET THOSE FOUR MEN TO JOIN RICK WARREN IN PRESIDING OVER THE INAUGURATION?"  OVERHEARD RESPONSE, "IF HE'S REALLY LUCKY! AND SANTA CAME THROUGH THIS YEAR!"
 
AND THE UNITY TRAIN KEEPS A'ROLLING!
 
 
 
 
Today the US military announced: "A U.S. Soldier died, Dec. 31, in Balad, Iraq from injuries sustained during combat operations, Dec. 30."  And they announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier died from wounds sustained during a mortar attack in Baghdad Dec. 31."  The announcements bring the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4221.  The toll for the month thus far is 14.  You could say, "The death toll so far is the same as the media reported for October" but . . .  14 was the October death toll; however, the media rushed to insist it was 13. So it'll be cute to see if anyone references the October death toll in their reporting and, if so, how they do it.  If your outlet reported 13 and never corrected it, you're really pushing it to just say, "The same number as in October."  13 was the death toll for July -- the lowest monthly death toll for 2008.
 
Speaking of bad reporting . . . The Philadelphia Inquirer's Trudy Rubin wrote a laughable column (another one) that was published in the US on Christmas Eve and was published Monday in Taiwan.  Trudy sees "signs of change on the streets of Baghdad" but, silly fool, she also believes that the US treaty with the puppet government in Baghdad will be followed.  There are puppets in Baghdad smarter than Trudes.  Where to start?
 
The "US Troops Withdrawal Agreement" is what the treaty was called by al-Maliki and what foolish idiots believed it was.  It was no such thing.  The treaty was needed to grant another one-year extension.  The United Nations' Security Council could have extended the mandate for a year but the White House didn't want that.  (Nor did al-Maliki who had -- two years in a row -- already gone around Parliament to get the mandate extended twice.) The treaty needed to cover a year.  When the US began addressing it (in 2007), they frequently spoke of that reality.  Trudy (and Patrick Cockburn) must have been sleeping.  2009 is the only year that both sides have to follow.  2010 can find the contract altered or cancelled.  The same with 2011.  In 2010, both parties may choose to replace it with a new treaty.  It is a one-year contract with two options for renewal. 
 
In mid-November, al-Maliki took to Iraq TV (state TV) to declare, "The pact stipulates that U.S. troops are to withdraw from cities and towns by June 30, 2009.  And it is a deadline that will not be extended.  It also says that [the US] should withdraw from Iraqi land, water and air space by January 1, 2011 -- which is a deadline that will not be extended."  That was back when he was calling it the "US Withdrawal Agreement."
 
Nouri and Bully Boy were shoulder-to-shoulder recently.  Remember that?  At al-Maliki's palace?  Maybe people forget because the one-shoe, two-shoe incident attracted so much attention?  But check the transcript at the White House and see what al-Maliki's calling it?  Is he calling it the "US Withdrawal Agreement"?  No.  He's using the same term the White House did "SOFA" -- Status Of Forces Agreement.  It's not a withdrawal agreement.  And at the December 20th Green Zone press conference, Iraqi Maj Gen Qassim Atta called the treaty the "US Withdrawal Agreement"?  No.  He referred to the June 2009 'withdrawal' as being "according to what's been said during -- the agreements, an agreement, the security agreement". 
 
The US Withdrawal Agreement was just a brand al-Maliki slapped on it in November when he was attempting to pressure Parliament to vote for it.  Since then, that 'term' is no longer used, not even by al-Maliki.  Now let's deal with the June claim Trudy's pimping.  From the December 22nd snapshot:
 
Today Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) examines the realities of the so-called US withdrawal from Iraq and it's not a pretty sight.  Bumiller and Thom Shanker reported last week on how the 'plan' presented to president-elect Barack Obama -- the Petraeus-Odierno plan -- wouldn't allow for that campaign 'promise' of a US withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.  Friday Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reported that word games could allow for the impression that promises were being kept -- including what the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement allegedly promised. For context,  Sudarsan Raghavan and Qais Mizher (Washington Post) explained last week, "American combat troops will remain inside Iraqi cities to train and mentor Iraqi forces after next summer, despite a security agreement that calls for their withdrawal from urban areas by June 30, the top U.S. military commander said Saturday."  With all that as the backdrop, Bumiller explains today that "a semantic dance" has begun at the Pentagon over what qualifies as a combat soldier and, with regards to the treaty, "Even though the agreement with the Iraqi government calls for all American combat troops to be out of the cities by the end of June, military planners are now quietly acknowledging that many will stay behind as renamed "trainers" and "advisers" in what are effectively combat roles. In other words, they will still be engaged in combat, just called something else."  Bumiller notes that "trainers" and "advisers" will be the renaming terms for "combat troops" in order to keep them in Iraq: "In other words, they will still be engaged in combat, just called something else." Of Barack, she notes, "it has become clear that his definition of ending the war means leaving behind many thousands of American troops."
 
So that means we've taken care of The Trudys and their "withdraw from major cities in June!" nonsense.  (And it's already been learned that even the private contractors/mercenaries clause may not stand.)  With the well known history of US treaties, you really had to be naive to think it would work out any differently.  Naive or a liar.
 
So let's back up to this 'safer' claim.  The same  December 20th Green Zone press conference found Maj Gen Atta expounding on what's in store for the coming year: "The year of 2009 is going to witness a lot more coordination between Baghdad Amanat and the BOC and also the traffic police to reopen all the closed roads and streets and to also lift or remove all the concrete barries or security barriers, and [. . . .]"  Really?  And the security's going to hold?  Hmmm.  It's very likely that some of the news outlets pulling reporters from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan may have to alter those plans at some point in the new year.
 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)