Cedric's Big Mix: 2010-05-23

Saturday, May 29, 2010

The dumb blonde presidency

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

"IT'S NESTLE TIME!" HOLLERED CELEBRITY IN CHEIF BARRY O AS HE HEADED OUT TO THE COURT TO PLAY BASKETBALL LEAVING RAHM TO EXPLAIN TO THESE REPORTERS, "HE MEANS CRUNCH TIME. NORMAL SPEAK IS ALWAYS HARD FOR OUR SPOCK-LIKE BARRY O."

BARRY O FELT HE DESERVED A BREAK BECAUSE, IN THE 40 DAYS SINCE THE GULF DISASTER, HE VISITED IT TWICE. OF COURSE, DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF TIME, GEORGE W. BUSH HAD VISITED KATRINA SITES 7 TIMES.

"HEY, DIG ME!" HOLLERED BARRY O POINTING TO HIS SHORTS WHICH HE HAD SQUEEZED THE BASKETBALL INTO. "RAHM, I GOT ONE BALL ALMOST AS BIG AS BOTH OF YOURS!"

"PRINT IT," RAHM SAID TURNING AROUND TO FACE THESE REPORTERS. "PRINT IT. PRINT ANYTHING. AS LONG AS NO ONE'S FOCUSING ON OUR EFFORT TO BRIBE A CANDIDATE INTO DROPPING OUT OF A RACE -- A CRIMINAL ACTION -- WE'RE HAPPY."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with The Diane Rehm Show and here is how the website notes their second hour and how it was noted in on air promos leading up to the (live) broadcast:

Vice President Biden says U.S. troops will be out of Iraq as scheduled [C.I. note: For the drawdown, this is not a withdrawal, for the August drawdown]. North and South Korea continue to ratchet up their rhetoric. And drug violence in Jamaica leaves dozens dead. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top international news stories.

Wow. Iraq the first mentioned. At last, it was going to get some serious attention, right?

Wrong. It was one brief minute badly bungled by the biggest idiot on the show. Diane's guests were Elise Labott (CNN), Michael Hirsh (Newsweek) and David Sanger (New York Times). David Sanger's out of his element as a second hour guest. (The paper's Helene Cooper could handle it though international reporters would actually be better.) Elisa Labott covers the State Dept and has an international background. She would have been the best choice if ONLY ONE guest was going to BRIEFLY speak on Iraq. Of the three, Sanger would be the second choice. Michael Hirsh?

Uh, I believe America's rejected Newseek. I believe that's why it can't find a buyer. The trashy weekly (infamous for falsely printing that Jean Seberg was pregnant with the child of a 'Black activist' -- a willing and knowing cooperation with the US government in an effort to destroy Jean) may get some CIA funding but the publishing industry's done with it because it can't grasp reality: There is no Barack publishing market.

Apparently, the Cult of St. Barack has either stopped drinking the Kool-Aid or they don't read. But as one failed book after another, as one hyped magazine cover after another has failed to move, others in the publishing industry have moved on. Newsweek can't stop dry humping Barack. America has no trust in that rag, American has no interest in it.

So Biden says the drawdown is on track? We addressed that in yesterday's snapshot. Joe says the number of US troops in Iraq will be 50,000 by the end of August. Next week is the start of June. June, July and August. 3 months. The Pentagon states there are 92,000 US troops in Iraq (they fed the press that number this week to trumpet that there were more troops in Afghanistan). 92,000 minus 50,000 is 42,000 troops. The average number of troops in a brigade is 3,500. That's well over ten brigades. Candidate Barack Obama promised one brigade a month would be withdrawn from Iraq over his first sixteen months in office if elected (he broke that promise) and stated that it couldn't be more because more than one brigade a month would put too much stress on the system and put too much at risk. (Those are what as known as "lies.") Over 3 troops must be withdrawn in June, 3 in July and 3 in August for the deadline to be met.

Michael Hirsh couldn't offer any of that. He could stammer like the fool he is uh-uh-uh-uh. He could lick the boots of Barack and pass that off as journalism but he couldn't deal with any of the facts. His babbles summed up Newsweek. A piss poor, piece of s**t, that never cared about the facts and never had anything to offer but opinion.

In partnership with the CIA, they published the lie that Jean Seberg was pregnant with the child of "a Black activist" in an effort to destroy Jean Seberg who was both an actress and a political activist speaking out agains the war in Vietnam and racism. The CIA hooked up with Newsweek's foreign correspondent in France who did an interview with Jean that she described as bland. But Edward Behr had already agreed to write up info the CIA wanted in his report for Newsweek. Kermit Lasner would offer excuses for how he, as editor, allowed the statement into print which would include a tough lunch that gave him 'hard gas' and a spill on scooter. Here's what Newsweek printed in the August 24, 1970 issue: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in Ocotober is by another man -- a black activist she met in California." The US government wanted to destroy her and just knew that was the way to do it. Publishing the lie, destroyed Jean personally for other reasons. She lost the baby. Romain sued. He sued Newsweek.

But the CIA has so many helpers that a huge disinformation campaign has taken place over the last years and allowed Joyce Harber, a gossip columnist, to be blamed. Joyce ran a blind item in May of 1970. It could have been about Jean, it could have been about Jane Fonda, it could have been about any number of women and it caused no ripple. Jean did not miscarry in May. Jean didn't go into the hopsital in May. That happened in August after Newsweek published their lie. But Joyce Harber has been the target of the disinformation campaign and you will read the lie all over the net -- or hear from FAIR in any of its forms -- that Joyce is responsible and was working with Hoover's FBI. Joyce didn't get the tip from the FBI. CIty editor Bill Thomas passed that rumor on to Joyce. Joyce was always clear about where she got the information and how. Bill? Bill lied a million and one times and constantly changed his story. He got his tip from the FBI. He was doing Hoover's bidding.

But that attack didn't work out. Harber was smart enough to know what she could and what she couldn't print. And she also didn't think the tale (which she assumed true) was worth more than any other bit of gossip regarding who is sleeping with whom.

Edward Behr, fed by the CIA, ran with as a non-blind item months later. Kermit Lasner knew better but printed it because Newsweek was but an organ. And Jean Seberg lost her baby. So as Newsweek falters and falters, good. Justice for Jean Seberg.

As illegal wars continue today in Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone considering themselves part of today's peace movement needs to reject the disinformation campaign that blames a blind item by Joyce Harber (which ran in May) for Jean's August miscarriage. Anyone who considers themselves part of the peace movement needs to grasp that Newsweek actively and knowingly worked with the CIA to destroy Jean because she spoke out against American actions in Vietnamand against racism at home. The government wanted to destroy Jean Seberg and Newsweek was more than willing to enlist in that campaign. It is very easy to (wrongly) blame Harber and taking a stand against a (dead) gossip columnist never required bravery. A lot of people have spent a lot of time over the last decades rewriting history. Romain sued one and only one publication: Newsweek. It's amazing how that falls from the public record as a disinformation campaign takes hold.

RECOMMEND: "Iraq snapshot"
"$5.5 million bank robbery in Iraq"
"And a big yellow taxi took away my old man"
"Bully Boy George"
"Armchitka in the Kitchen"
"The economy"
"No Secrets Carly promised and delivered"
"The unconvincing press conference"
"Chain Reaction"
"Terry's dizzy in the boys locker room"
"david saw, the whole enchilada"
"c.i. was right! (as usual)"
"When I've got trouble even opening a honey jar"
"Liars get exposed"
"The doctrine continues"
"Neal Conan's an idiot and a f**king liar"
"Wicked Ways (Ben Taylor)"
"Dan Choi's the real deal"
"Nine"
"Barry loves to vacation and lives to spin"
"Graham Nash's Songs For Beginners"
"You're Boyfriend's A Really Nice Guy"
"Greg Mitchell is an ass who needs to die"
"He tries so hard to be pretty"
"THIS JUST IN! DO THEY LOVE HIM AGAIN!"

Thursday, May 27, 2010

He tries so hard to be pretty

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

FOLLOWING TODAY'S PRESS CONFERENCE, THESE REPORTERS AND THE GUARDIAN'S SUZANNE GOLDENBERG WERE ALLOWED TO GET THE BEHIND THE SCENES VIEWS AS RAHM EMANUEL CRUNCHED FOCUS GROUP NUMBERS AND ATTEMPTED TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH DAMAGE CONTROL THE PRESS CONFERENCE PROVIDED?

SAID CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, "I JUST NEED TO KNOW ONE THING, DID THEY THINK I LOOKED PRETTY? I GOT A BLACK RINSE TO REDUCE SOME OF THE GRAY. DID ANYONE NOTICE THAT, RAHM? DID THEY?"

RAHM GRABBED BARRY O BY THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND STRONGLY HEADED BUTTED -- SLAMMED HIS OWN FOREHEAD INTO BARRY'S -- WITH THE CELEBRITY.

"DID YOU THINK THAT WOULD KNOCK SOME SENSE INTO ME?" SPUTTERED BARRY O.

"NO, YOU JUST GET ON MY NERVES SOMETIMES," REPLIED RAHM. "NOW WHERE'S KEN SALAZAR? I NEED TO TAKE A PISS."

SUDDENLY GOLDBERG CAME DASHING OVER EXCLAIMING, "FELLOWS! A GARDNER ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN JUST GAVE ME AN EXCLUSIVE. TURNS OUT GEORGE WASHINGTON NEVER TOLD A LIE! AND HE CHOPPED DOWN A CHERRY TREE! THIS WILL BE MY BIGGEST SCOOP SINCE I LET ANONYMICE FEED ME THE SPIN THAT BARRY O WAS 'DAMN' ANGRY ABOUT THE GULF DISASTER!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As Iraq continues "stumbling into false starts, fumbling around with false hopes, tumbling into false hearts, mainly mine" ("Make Me Feel Something," written by Carly Simon, originally appears on her Spoiled Girl album), the US doesn't have a whole lot to brag about. On the Senate floor to a 'debate' -- if debates can last mere minutes -- took place as Barack Obama's war funding supplemental -- he swore no more supplementals in April of 2009 but he's not real good at keeping promises. Senator Russ Feingold introduced an amendment -- co-sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Bernard Sanders, Robert Byrd and Tom Harkin -- calling for President Obama to "plan for safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan. On the Senate floor, he declared:

This is not a timetable, a binding timetable. It really asks the president to give us a flexible vision, a timetable of when he would intend for this to be over. And the senator from Michigan [Senator Carl Levin] tries to reassure us that the president has announced a start date for us to get out of Afghanistan. Well that doesn't really work because how do you feel the people in that area of the world would be reassured if we're only going to start withdrawing the troops in July of 2011? You can take one troop out. That starts it. That's not a vision of when we intend to complete it. The senator suggests that somehow this sends the wrong message in the region. Well actually the wrong message is that we intend to be there forever. We don't intend to be there forever. But you know what? After nine years, people start wondering. Nine years. Nine years. With no vision of when we might depart. In fact, I think the absolute worst message in the region is an open-ended committment. The worst thing we can do is not give some sense to the people of that region, to the American people and to our troops that there is some end to this thing. And all we ask in this amendment is some vision from the president about when he thinks we might complete this task. So when this admendment is properly characterized. It is actually a way to help us make sure that the Taliban and al Qaeda and others do not win the hearts and the minds of the Afghan people -- because they need to be reassured that we intend to make sure that their country comes back to them and that we will not occupy it indefinitely.

Feingold also noted his disappointment that "a bill providing tens of billions of dollars to keep this war going" was being proposed "with so little public debate about whether this approach makes any sense." Senator Carl Levin responded by characterizing the amendment as one that "would reinforce fear" and stated that there is "already a deep seated fear in Afghanistan" that it would be abandoned by the US. It was not a good moment for Levin and you half expected Russ Feingold to respond by breaking out into Annie Lennox's "Little Bird" ("They always said that you knew best, but this little bird's falling out of that nest . . .") Instead, Feingold offered a response which included, "The senator suggests that somehow this sends the wrong message in the region. Well actually, the wrong message is that we intend to be there forever."

We're going to fall back to Tuesday for the following on numbers. Journalists like to hide behind numbers and claim that numbers are objective and they don't lie. They may not lie but journalists damn well do decide what to emphasize and what to ignore. If you want an example of how that works, note this CBS News story by David Martin, this ABC news story by Jake Tapper, and we could go on and on but those are two of the better reporters and if that's what the best are doing . . . . Are they lying about the number of troops in Afghanistan? No, they're hiding behind that number (fed to them by the Pentagon, no reporter did the actual work on the numbers) and avoiding telling you about other numbers.

The most important number this week, as noted in yesterday's snapshot, is 171. That's the number of US service members who have died in the Iraq War since Barack was sworn in as President of the United States. "We want to end the war! And we want to end it now!" He hollered that often as tent revivals causing damp panties for many men and women. Now? End the illegal war now? He's been in office 16 months and the Iraq War drags on. The 'peace' candidate took office 16 months ago and has not ended the Iraq War, has continued it and is responsible for those 171 deaths.

Now the Pentagon didn't supply that number. But they supplied the number Tapper and Martin are quoting. Why are we back to the numbers? It's worth noting the death toll. It's worth noting the numbers Tapper and Martin dealt with Monday for another reason. Here's Martin: "The Pentagon says there are now more U.S. troops in Afghanistan (94,000) than in Iraq (92,000), reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin."

Keep the 92,000 in mind. Two years ago Alysha G wrote Yahoo! Answers: "How many people are in a combat brigade? I need to know for a presentation, for the persuasion of Obama." Best anser was: "They vary depending on what kind of brigade it is. Infantry brigades generally have around 3,500 soldiers and are commanded by Colonels. Armor brigades would have less soldiers." We'll be generous and go with 4,000 per brigade. The Pentagon just announced this week that there were 92,000 US troops in Iraq. Yes, math is involved in this but we'll go slowly. Scott Wilson (Washington Post) reports, "The sensitive departure is being managed by Vice President Biden, who says the U.S. military will reduce troop levels to 50,000 this summer, even if no new Iraqi government takes shape."

Let's do the math slowly. 92,000 minus 50,000 is: 42,000. Using 4,000 per brigade, that means there are 10.5 brigades to withdraw. That might seem doable . . . if it weren't May 27th. That leaves three months. For Barack's promise to be met and the US forces to drop to 50,000 by the end of August, that means June will need to see 14,000 troops pulled from Iraq, July will need 14,000 and August will need 14,000.

Candidate Barack and his advisers insisted that one brigade a month was the magic number because it was doable without causing any strain (on the deploying functions within the military or on Iraq). So from 4,000 a month to 14,000 a month?

As we saw when Georgia's forces (the country, not the US state) departed, it is doable. But so is an immediate departure of all US troops. If Barack manages to keep this promise, the real win will be that it will underscore what so many -- including former Senator Mike Gravel and Governor Bill Richardson -- noted which was that the withdrawal could take place much more quickly than Barack was insisting it could.

[. . .]

Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan hosts Cindy's Soapbox (radio program) and is also a founder of Peace of the Action. This week, she is Matthew Rothschild's guest on Progressive Radio:

Matthew Rothschild: These books -- I don't know much about your books, so I wanted to ask you and I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't read them because I usually try to read the books before the guest comes on.

Cindy Sheehan: Right, right.

Matthew Rothschild: Myth of America: The Ten Greatest Myths of the Robber Class or the 20 greatest myths. What's the biggest myth? Or what's one of the biggest myths?

Cindy Sheehan: Well I wrote 10 Greatest Myths last -- the beginning of last year after Obama was inaugurated and I saw the policies of the Bush administration continuing without much of an outcry from the so-called left. And so I started to think, "What makes us do that? What makes us -- every four to eight years -- believe in a system that is so corrupt and-and really cancerous no matter who's in charge of the system. And so I wrote that. I went on a forty book -- I mean a forty city book tour and I realized through the discussions I had in these towns that I really didn't hit the myths enough. And so then I came back last summer and wrote The 20 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class. And the myth I started out with is the foundational myth, I think, and that's that America's the greatest nation in the universe. Not on the planet, not in history, but in the universe. And so that makes us believe all the other myths because we, most good people, no matter if they're on the so-called right or the so-called left, we really believe that if our country does something wrong, it must have good intentions. And so that's not the case. And so I wrote the 20 myths. We have to expose the myths and dispell them and then I think we could have true change for the better in this country -- whether it's through, you know -- I call for a grassroots, very localized revolutions, you know -- and, of course, they're non-violent revolutions. But taking back our economy, taking back our government, taking back even our food systems. We have to do that if we truly want to have a more healthy -- not only a more healthy United States of America but a healthier world.

Matthew Rothschild: Cindy Sheehan, this foundational myth -- as you call this -- is really profound. It's this myth of what I call "The American Superiority Complex."

Cindy Sheehan: Yes, exactly.

Matthew Rothschild: And the idea, as you say, is that we don't -- everything we do, as you say, is because of good intentions or if we do something that isn't working out, it's because it's an accident.

Cindy Sheehan: Right, right.

Matthew Rothschild: Or it didn't work out the way that we expected.

Cindy Sheehan: It's an aberration.

Matthew Rothschild: Or a rouge operation!

Cindy Sheehan: Right.

Matthew Rothschild: Or something. Not that it's elemental to the way that US foreign policy operates.

Cindy Sheehan: Right.

Matthew Rothschild: How is that myth propagated? How has it become so ingrained?

Cindy Sheehan: Oh my gosh, it's propagated through our schools, through our media, through our -- even, I talk about in my books, how Martin Luther King Jr. celebrations have turned militaristic. You know, where they roll tanks down the streets in the parade and they fly the Blue Angel planes overhead. And I tell a story about when I was second grade and my second grade teacher asked us a question -- and this was back in, let me see, 1964. They asked a question -- she asked us a question: "If a Communist came up to you and put a gun to your head and told you not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, what would you do?" So, of course, I raised my hand and I said I wouldn't recite it and I had to stand in the corner. So even when I was seven-years-old, I was being called unpatriotic, a traitor to this country. So, yeah, I mean it's done through fear mongering, through Madison Avenue. Distraction is a really good way to keep us not thinking about if -- that our country is doing these crimes, these crimes against humanity. So there's just a lot of ways that this myth is propagated. And the number one way it starts, it starts in the family.

Cindy's Soapbox is a weekly radio program and her scheduled guest on the show that begins airing Sunday is former US Congress member and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Guardian hires street walkers and provides them pens

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

THERE HAVE BEEN FOOLS, THERE HAVE BEEN WHORES, THERE HAVE BEEN THOSE WHO COOKED THE KOOL-AID BEFORE MAINLINING IT.

BUT SUZANNE GOLDENBERG TAKES THE CAKE.

SHE REPEATS, LATE TONIGHT, THE SPIN ELAINE WAS MOCKING TUESDAY NIGHT.

SO TONIGHT, THESE REPORTERS KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET.

SUZANNE, NEXT TIME, BEFORE YOU START WHORING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, WIPE THE CUM OFF YOUR LIPS FIRST.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last night, catty Barack Obama teamed up with catty Barbara Boxer who appears to be begging California to vote her out of office. Barry was droning on in his stop-stop, Sandy Dennis manner -- so many vocal tics you expect him to ask for a Coke. With. Crushed ice. Come Back To The Speech Therapist, Barry O, Barry O. He ended up heckled. And between his vanity and his well known bitchery, you knew Barry wasn't going to stand for it. As he scowled, Barbara Boxer snarls that "it's the same guy" who heckled Barry last time. The guy was Kip Williams and Barbara only likes it when closeted lesbians heckle Karl Rove. That she'll get behind and cheer.

Rafael Corral (KFRC) posts video of the exchange.

Barry: I have to say. You know. I saw. ThisguydowninLA. At a Barbara Boxer event.

Bitchy Barbara: That's right!

Barry: At. A. Barbaraboxerevent. About a month and a half ago. And -- uhhhh- I would -- two points I'd like to make. Number one. Uhhh. I hate to say this but he should -- I hate to say this but he really should like buy a ticket to -- Uhhhh. If-if he wants to demonstrate, buy a ticket to a guy who doesn't support his point of view and then you can yell as much as you want there. The other point is maybe he didn't read the newspapers.

That's enough of Barack's bitchy tirade against an American citizen. Forever low class, that's Barry O. And the holler monkeys assembled -- sounding like the same wet dreamers for George W. Bush in 2003 -- lap it up. Like many other things, Barack isn't good at math. A month and a half ago? Go to the April 20th snapshot to read about the last California heckling on April 19th.

On the joke of 'repealing' Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Carolyn Lochhead (San Francisco Chronicle) notes GetEQUAL's Lt Dan Choi:

But Iraq veteran Lt. Dan Choi, who is facing dismissal for publicly stating that he is gay and who twice chained himself to the White House gates in protest, argued that there should be no compromise on ending discrimination and said the White House could stop dismissals now.
"If any groups are saying this is a reason to rejoice, they need to wake up to the reality of soldiers on the ground," Choi said. The policy "is still in place and (gay and lesbian personnel) are still going to get fired for telling the truth."

At Newsweek, Dan explains:

I'm not going to lie. This compromise isn't what I, or any of my fellow advocates, wanted or expected. The compromise does not end the firings. Nor does it restore our integrity. It is the result of a White House that has been AWOL on "don't ask, don't tell" repeal for the last year and a half, and now is desperately trying to find a solution -- any solution, regardless of how unworkable -- to a problem and a promise it would rather just go away. Our "fierce advocate," as the president promised the gay community he would be, has presented us with a last-minute Hobson's choice, and it is no cause for celebration.
As the clock continues ticking toward a Thursday vote in Congress, the president is asking the lesbian and gay community to praise this compromise because it's the best we could possibly get. My question for the president that I ask in this video is simple: under your compromise, when will the discharges end? How long can we ask gay service members to live a lie? How long can we deny existence to their families? How long do we need to study the injustice in order to understand that discrimination is un-American? Poll after poll shows that the American people don't need another study in order to know what's right. Nearly 80 percent of Americans, from all walks of life, already understand what the president and the Congress still find so hard to grasp. The people support a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" now. When will their leaders do the same?

At Blue Oregon, Iraq War veteran Eric Zimmerman explains:

The last sections of the amendment by Sen. Lieberman strike all concern for a timeline, implementation, and any actual substantive qualities of the effort to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Unfortunately there is no meat to this amendment and it quickly becomes a talking point rather than a policy change and a piece of anti-discrimination legislation. Would we have settled for such weak legislation, lack of timelines, and lack of implementation for any of the civil rights legislation of generations past? Absolutely not!

Contrast this amendment with racial civil rights legislation. Race would have remained a point of discrimination legally until the President of the United States, and members of his cabinet decided it was time to change. They would have received a report about implications; the report would have sat on their desk for weeks, months, years? Perhaps an entire term of the Presidency. Nothing in this bill holds decision-makers' feet to the fire. Congress, who enacted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies of the early nineties, washes their hands of the issue. No longer are the individual representatives and senators who represent us responsive to us on this issue because this amendment puts power in the hands of the President, his Secretary of Defense, and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The President could of course replace the other two positions until he found people who would put their name to this policy change- but I don't have that kind of confidence in the President's agenda, nor should I. Politically, this issue does not warrant that kind of maneuvering. This is the right thing to do; it's a matter of just doing it. The SECDEF and the CJCS are good at what they do, they shouldn't be replaced for their lack of movement on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It shouldn't be their decision at all. Congress needs to repeal the ban and the President needs to sign the repeal into law. Bottom line.

What's really amazing, looking at this issue, is thinking of all the people who came of age after the March On Washington and other landmark events. They always like to say, coming of age after the battle, that they would have been on the right side. Reality is far different. They wouldn't have the guts then because they don't have it now. Instead of applauding Dan and Eric and everyone else fighting for a more equal America, they slam them. They say, as an idiot does at Blue Oregon, that you need "comrpomise. This is a compromise that will work". And they sneer "purity" at those striving for full equality.

People like that? That attitude? They were the same ones who felt that a few morsels tossed out justified continuing racial discrimination. Social change does not come about easily and look and see who today is on the side of equality and who is too busy carrying water for a president who will be out of office in two or six years. See who believes in equality and who believes in worshipping false gods. There is a very real battle going on for equal rights today. And it's not the within We The People. We The People have decided we want Don't Ask, Don't Tell ended. The battle is between We The People and our alleged representatives in the federal government. History doesn't come with do-overs. The present quickly becomes the historical record. People better be keeping that in mind when they decide whether they stand for equality or whether they're lustful teenage groupies making fools of themselves.

Meanwhile Joan Crawford in all her 'working girl' films never faced as much drama as Nouri al-Maliki attempts to create for himself. Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) reports the desperate-to-remain prime minister is claiming numerous assassination attempts have taken place and, here's the kicker, he didn't order them, he was the target. At one point, he insists that, in 2009, an airplane he was on was targeted: "A missile was fired against the plane but thermal decoys diverted it." He's seen far too many movies. AFP quotes the drama queen claiming, "There have been several attempts like this but they have all failed." Is he attempting to paint himself as indestructable or goading his alleged assassins on?

Each day brings us more laughable Nouri 'news' and it's getting so bad you expect to discover shortly that his agents trying to plant items in Liz Smith's latest column. Elections took place March 7th. The Iraqiya political slate won the most seats in Parliament (91). Nouri al-Maliki has repeatedly attempted to circumvent his slate's second place showing (State Of Law won 89 seats). Yesterday, the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative to Iraq, Ad Melkert, gave a report to the UN Security Council. The UN News Centre quotes him stating to the Council, "At this juncture, Iraq would probably be better served by a broadly inclusive Government as a radical alternative to exclusion and disenfranchisement that many communities have experienced in the past. [. . .] Failure by the next government to address the needs and aspirations of the population will predictably be a source of increasing instability and undermind the gains of the democratic process so far." So tight with the US government that you can't tell them apart, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace weighs in with a post-election analysis by Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi:

Fissures are also appearing among the Kurdish parties, although they had announced after the elections that they would participate in national politics as a unified bloc. According to some reports, the agreement reached by State of Law and the INA when they formed the National Alliance assumed the Kurds would back the Alliance, and that they would keep the presidency in return for their support. Statements made recently by various Kurdish leaders call that idea into question. There is no doubt that current President Jalal Talabani and his Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Party want to retain the presidency and will back the INA-State of Law alliance as a result. But the leaders of Gorran, the party that broke off from the PUK and remains its main rival, is now suggesting that the Kurds should not demand the presidency, but the speakership of the Council of Representatives. Ostensibly, this is because the latter position is more powerful. Not incidentally, if the Kurdish parties accepted Gorran's position and opted for the speakership rather than the presidency, Talabani would be deprived of the position he covets. Even more revealing of dissension among the Kurds is that fact that Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan region and the leader of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan, appears to be distancing himself from Maliki. Barzani has stated that Iraqi politicians must respect the constitution and the people's will, and thus Allawi, whose Iraqiya coalition won the largest number of seats, should receive the mandate to form the government.

It is impossible to determine at this point whether Barzani's position is just an opening gambit to win more concessions from the Shi'i parties or whether there is a possibility that at least some Kurdish parties will break ranks and back Allawi. Two conclusions are clear, however. First, State of Law is both angry and worried about Barzani's position, because it needs Kurdish support to form a government. Speaking for the State of Law, Ali Dabbagh angrily declared that the Kurds were welcome to side with Iraqiya if they wanted, but then thought better of it and denied having made such a statement. Second, the Kurds are trying to exact a high price for their support. Reports indicate that they are demanding the implementation of Article 140 of the constitution, which calls for a referendum in Kirkuk; control of the presidency plus at least one of the sovereign ministries; an oil law that defends their interests; and a commitment by the government to provide funding for the peshmerga forces even though the peshmerga have a degree of autonomy from the Iraqi security apparatus. Baha'a Aaraji of State of Law has declared that the Kurds will have to reconsider their exorbitant demands if they plan to negotiate seriously.

Meanwhile Press TV reports the government or 'government' out of Baghdad continues to insist that the UN sanctions be lifted. This as Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "The Iraqi council of ministers decided to dissolve Iraqi Airways and liquidate its assets after the airline dropped flights to England and Sweden in a row with Kuwait over war reparations." Nayla Razzouk (Bloomberg News) adds, "Kuwait Airways Corp. is seeking $1.2 billion in compensation for 10 planes taken by Iraq, under the rule of Saddam Hussein when his forces invaded Kuwait in August 1990." Left unstated in both reports is that Nouri and his council really shouldn't be doing this because they really aren't in power. It's amazing what Nouri is pushing through in this post-election period and amazing how news outlets seem to work overtime to ignore that its taking place. Representing Kuwait Airways is Chris Gooding of Fasken Martineau LLP who tells BBC News:

This is not an action that's being pursued by the government of Kuwait. It's being pursued by Kuwait Airways company against Iraqi Airways company. So attempts to portray it as a political witchhunt are sadly misplaced. [. . .] It relates to the incorporation of airpcraft and spare parts taken from Kuwait International Airport by Iraqi Airways as part of an attempt to encorporate Kuwait Airways into Iraqi Airways. [. . .] These are not reparations, these are commercial court judgments totaling $1.2 billion. As I say, Iraq has defended itself throughout this action as far as the courts are concerned, these are commercial court judgments.

Hassan Hafidh and Daniel Michaels (Wall St. Journal) add, "Kuwait Airways, also state owned, has in recent years been awarded some $1.2 billion by British courts in compensation from the Iraqi carrier for the theft of 10 airplanes and millions of dollars worth of spare parts during Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Iraqi Air hasn't paid the award, so Kuwait Air recently sought to freeze the company's assets world-wide."

Lunch from hell

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

YESTERDAY CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECIDED TO LUNCH WITH REPUBLICANS AND IT DID NOT GO WELL.

REFLECTING BACK ON IT THIS MORNING, BARRY O SAID HE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE ASKED WHERE THE SALAD WAS REPEATEDLY EVEN AFTER SENATOR BOB CORKER POINTED TO THE SALAD HE'D BROUGHT.

"AND I ASKED 'IS IT POKE SALAD?' AND WHETHER HE HAD PICKED IT OFF HIS FRONT LAWN," BARRY O EXPLAINED. "BUT ALL THE SALADS I KNOW ARE MADE WITH ARUGALA. 'ICE BERG LETTUCE'? WHO KNEW? I THOUGHT IT WAS A TITANIC JOKE!"

FURTHERMORE, BARRY O THOUGHT HIS ATTEMPTS AT HUMOR FAILED.

"PAT ROBERTS DID NOT APPEAR TO LIKE IT WHEN I MADE FART JOKES," BARRY O CONFESSED. "BUT IT WAS FUNNY. 'OOPS DID SOMEONE GO BOOPY! I THINK PAT MADE BOOPY!'"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"Two months after elections, the main political parties are no closer to forming a government, some progress has been made towards ratifying the results of the vote but the negotiations over the next prime minister might take weeks if not months," observed Riz Khan on his self-titled program last week (Al Jazeera, May 17th). "Iraqis are concerned that if either Shia or Sunni groups feel left out of the political process, sectarian tensions will rise again." Yesterday, newly elected MP Bashar Hamid Agaidi of the Iraqiya slate was assassinated in Mosul. In the lead in to reporting by Peter Kenyon (NPR's Morning Edition) notes today, Renee Montagne observed, "One of the biggest fears in Iraq is that it'll be overtaken, again, by sectarian violence before it can form a new government. And that fear was reinforced yesterday after a newly elected lawmaker was murdered." Iraq's not going to fall apart, it is falling apart and has been falling apart for some time. Catholic Culture reports Auxiliary Bishop William Shomali of Jerusalem delivered "The Middle Eastern Synod in Geopolitical and Patoral Context:"

The U.S. invasion decimated the Christian community. Before 1987, it numbered 1.25 million followers, mostly Chaldeans. Today they are less than 400,000. One of the great disasters of this century is the massive exodus of Iraqi Christians due to the insecurity and harassment of which they are victims. In Iraq, the war unleashed forces of evil in the country, among varying political streams and religious denominations. It has taken a toll on all Iraqis, but the Christians have been among the main victims because they represent the smallest and weakest of Iraqi communities. Even today, global politics completely fail to take them into account. This is in addition to other calamities that have struck the Christians of the Middle East in the past two centuries:
The genocide of one million and half Armenians in Turkey in 1915;
The genocide against the Maronites in 1860 and the Lebanese Civil War caused the exodus of many Christians;
The constant emigration of Christians from the Holy Land for more than a century.

Meanwhile Vatican Radio reports that Erbil has a bishop after not having one since 2005: "Pope Benedict XVI appointed Redemptorist Priest, Father Bashar Warda bishop of the Diocese" and "[s]ince the outbreak of war in Iraq it has become the place of refuge for thousands of persecuted Christians from the south." The persecution of the religious minorities has never stopped in Iraq. It is part of the reason Iraq has the largest refugee crisis in the world. And, in fact, for all the credit given to the "surge" and paying off Sahwa to stop attacking US troops and equipment, another reason why what's known as the "civil war" (ethnic cleansing) decreased may be due to the fact that so many who were being targeted fled the country -- over two million. Equally true is that another approximately two million Iraqis fled their homes but remained in Iraq (internal refugees).

A fear of being overtaken by sectarian violence? It's that fear, in part, that motivates Kirk Johnson (The List Project To Resettle Iraqi Allies) in his work attempting to garner asylum for Iraqis who were US collaborators during the illegal war. Johnson appeared on NHPR's Word Of Mouth today and told Virginia Prescott that the project currently has "a slate of several thousand names" of Iraqis they would like to resettle.

Virginia Prescott: Well what is the plan? I mean the US plans to have half of its 100,000 troops out of Iraq by the end of August of this year. What is the strategy for the Iraqis left behind?

Kirk Johnson: Well right now . . . I hate to say it but I'm worried that the plan is wishful thinking.

Asked for an estimate by Prescott of how many Iraqis are being discussed, Johnson revealed that the US has never kept a tally of how many Iraqis have worked for the US. When the British left Basra, Johnson asserted, those collaborators with the British military were targeted: "There were Iraqi interpreters that were dragged through the streets to their deaths. There was a single, public execution of 17 interpreters and their bodies were dumped in the streets." Earlier this month, Johnson wrote on the topic at Foreign Policy in "Left Behind in Iraq." Johnson left out an important development (it wasn't known when he appeared this morning) that will effect all Iraqi refugees including the ones his group wants to help.

Today the White House announced that Mark C. Storella was being nominated to be the US Ambassador to Zambia. This really is not the time for anyone in his position to be relocated (unless they're doing a poor job, we'll get to Chris Hill in a moment) and the White House notes:

Mark C. Storella is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service. He currently serves as the Senior Coordinator for Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. He previously served as Deputy Permanent Representative and Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and other International Organizations in Geneva. Mr. Storella was also the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. His other overseas assignments include Rome, Paris, Bangkok and a previous tour in Phnom Penh. In Washington, Mr. Storella worked on the NATO and Japan desks, and as Executive Assistant to the Counselor of the Department of State. He received his A.B. degree from Harvard College and an M.A. in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

Storella is the Senior Coordinator for Iraqi Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons at the US Embassy in Baghdad. Johnson (rightly) worries that the US government has no plans regarding the refugees Johnson's concerned about. Not only do they not have a plan but the go-to person in Baghdad, the US diplomat overseeing the refugee issue, is about to be transferred to another continent.

And for those left behind in the ongoing war? Zeina Khodr (Al Jazeera) looked at Iraq's children who have lost their parents to the illegal war:

Zeina Khodr: Hameedd and Abbas are victims of Iraq's War. Still traumatized from events three years ago, Abbas rarely speaks. His brother tells their story.

Hameed Abed Ali: My mother had psychological problems, terrorists captured her, they wanted ransom and asked my father whether we were Sunni or Shia. He didn't have the money. They put an explosive belt around her and blew it up among worshipers coming to Karbala.

Zeina Khodr: Many have similar stories. Three brothers and a sister are among scores of orphans left behind due to killings and violence. They all saw their father taken by armed men wearing masks from their home in Diyala just over two years ago.

Moustapha Sabah Hassan: First of all they took my father from the house and after three days they brought him back tortured and badly beaten. He died a few days later.

Zeina Khodr: Many of those who lost their parents in violence don't understand why they were killed and they have little understanding about the war and politics in their country; however, some of them fear for their future. They are aware of the world outside this orphanage. The realities in today's Iraq. Violence is still a part of daily life.

Social worker Intisar Shaker: Sometimes they're worried about the security situation. They ask me whether the terrorists will come and hurt them. We do our best to comfort them.

Zeina Khodr: But social workers and psychologists can only do so much. Shelter, food and care are just not enough for some to deal with the psychological scars.

Ahmed al-Amari of the Sayyed Hussein Sadr Institution: Maybe after years, they will be able to get better and re-integrate into society but we have one child who has been here for three years and continues to suffer, sometimes cries for hours.

Zeina Khodr: There are others who just don't remember their ordeal. Ali is one of them. He survived a car bombing in which his parents were killed in 2008. But those who do remember wish they could provide safety they themselves didn't know.

Hameed Abed Ali: When I grow up, I want to be a police man. Police men protect people and, when people need help, I can assist them.

Zeina Khodr: It is children like Hamid who need assistance now. A whole generation that will have to reconcile with a past while trying to build a future. Zeina Khodr, All Jazeera, Baghdad.

And for those lucky enough to be part of intact families? Peter Kenyon (NPR's Morning Edition) reported today that the violence and the uncertainty "Hamed wouldn't call it a panic, but the families he sees are those who have decided to play it safe by leaving now - to Syria, Jordan, and sometimes onto Europe or elsewhere - at least for this period of uncertainty."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Murders and robberies -- Bonnie & Clyde? No, Iraq"
"Some numbers matter, some don't"
"Gibbs and Barry, the train wreck"
"As Greece goes . . ."
"Radio"
"even carville calls it out"
"At what point does Mr. Obama take accountability?"
"Chatter"
"Bloom off the rose"
"We're all Jindal?"
"CBS News is an idiot"
"Heaven help us all"
"Not so popular these days"
"THIS JUST IN! HEAP OF TROUBLE!"

Monday, May 24, 2010

Not so popular these days

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, PICTURED BELOW WITH HIS LAST TWO REMAINING AND IMAGINARY FRIENDS, IS IN A HEAP OF TROUBLE.

"HECK OF A JOB, BARACK" IS REPLACING "HECK OF A JOB, BROWNIE" AND, AS SHE HULK CAN TELL YOU, BARRY HAS NO SENSE OF HUMOR WHEN IT COMES TO HIMSELF. AND WHILE THE GULF OIL SPILL CONTINUES 34 DAYS LATER, HIS ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES ISSUING OFF SHORE DRILLING PERMITS.

THINGS ARE SO BAD THAT DEVAL PATRICK, AKA GOVERNOR WHO, RUSHED IN TO DEFEND THE FAIR MAIDEN BARRY O'S HONOR -- AND MADE AN ASS OUT OF BOTH OF THEM IN THE PROCESS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today the US military announced: "JOINT BASE BALAD, Iraq -- One U.S. Soldier was killed Monday while conducting operations in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name of the deceased is being withheld pending notification of next of kin and release by the Department of Defense. The names of service members are announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kind. The incident is under investigation." This is only one of the deaths announced since Friday. Saturday, the US military announced: "CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, Iraq -- A United States Division-North Soldier was killed Friday near Mosul. The name of service member is announced through the U.S. Department of Defense official website at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/. The announcements are made on the Web site no earlier than 24 hours after notification of the service member's primary next of kin. The incident is under investigation." There were two deaths announced on Saturday but they have still not fixed this at USF:

Soldier dies of non-combat related causes		Hits ( - )
RELEASE No. 20100522-01 May 22, 2010 CONTINGENCY OPERATING BASE SPEICHER, IRAQ – A United States Division – North Soldier died Thursday of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. ... United States Forces - Iraq PAO - Saturday, May 22, 2010

Which, as we noted Saturday, if you use the link, you'll see USF has linked to a September 2006 death announcement. They still have not fixed it. AP reports on the two deaths announced Saturday here. The three deaths bring the total number of US service members killed in Iraq to 4400. Barack Obama was sworn in as the US President on January 20, 2009 and, as noted in that day's snapshot, the death toll for US service members then stood at 4229. Other than the idiot Raed Jarrar, anyone still pretending the Super Model's a man of peace? 171 US service members have died in Iraq since Barack took the oath of office -- this alleged man of peace, this man who was allegedly going to end the Iraq War. 171 deaths. What a proud moment for War Hawk Obama.

Presumably the latest deaths are part of that "success" Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) quoted Bush, er Barack, speaking of at West Point today. Will Inboden (Foreign Policy) observes of the speech:

President Obama's West Point speech on Saturday provides a great example of the structural continuities in American foreign policy. As president and commander-in-chief, Obama now embraces and owns policies that he previously eschewed. For example, after running his campaign denouncing the Iraq War and doubting the surge, he is now essentially declaring Iraq a victory ("this is what success looks like: an Iraq that provides no safe-haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.") After spending much of his first year in office downplaying if not ignoring democracy and human rights promotion, he is now making democracy and human rights promotion one of the four pillars of his national security strategy. After previously rhetorically distancing himself from American exceptionalism, he now says that a "fundamental part of our strategy is America's support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding."

The White House has posted Barack's idiotic speech -- one that implies he knows nothing about loyalty to country because he didn't attend West Point (hey, I'm not the moron that wrote it or the one that delivered it -- the point of the speech is that West Point taught them about America and love of country, something most Americans would argue their own families taught them long before they were teenagers). 171 US service members killed in Iraq since he took his oath of office and try to find that awareness in his idiotic ramblings.

While Super Model posed and preened before the cadets, World Can't Wait was outside the gates protesting. World Can't Wait's Debra Sweet offers a rebuttal to Barry O's claims that the Taliban was toppled and a new Afghanistan has 'hope' (apparently Barry O bottled some of his work out sweat and sent it over in soda bottles):

I contest every one of those statements, addressed as much to the world and the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq as to the graduating officers. See this youtube report from Channel 4 News in the UK: U.S. Trains, Backs Afghan Death Squads.

Bagram is the New Guantanamo....Except It's Worse. US Court Rules NO Habeas Rights

I can't say it better than Ken Theisen and Glen Greenwald said it after Friday's US Court of Appeals ruling that men detained by the U.S. in Bagram -- no matter where they were picked up from -- have no right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Ken Theisen runs down the history and implications of the decision. The End of Habeas Corpus: This is "Justice" in Obama's America.

Tina Foster of the International Justice Network, who argued the plaintiff's case, and has traveled the world to find their familes, said that if the precedent set by Obama stands, "Obama and future presidents would have a free hand to 'kidnap people from other parts of the world and lock them away for the rest of their lives' without having to prove in court that their suspicions about such prisoners were accurate.

'The thing that is most disappointing for those of us who have been in the fight for this long is all of the people who used to be opposed to the idea of unlimited executive power during the Bush administration but now seem to have embraced it during this administration,' she said. 'We have to remember that Obama is not the last president of the United States.'"

Shawn Cohen (Lower Hudson Journal News) reports at least a hundred were present and protesting and:

The protesters included several Vietnam era activists and one former member of the U.S. Army, Matthew Chiroux, who gave a speech about his service in Afghanistan.
"I committed a crime when I went to Afghanistan," said Chiroux, who is 26 and from Brooklyn, calling Obama a war criminal. "I am done being a veteran. I am an insurgent for peace."

Barack is a War Criminal. And he's exactly like George W. Bush as he demonstrates every day. Ryan Jaroncyk (California Independent Voter) explains:

Following in the footsteps of George W. Bush, President Obama has requested another $33 billion of "emergency", off-budget spending on the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

As a presidential candidate, Obama often criticized President Bush's chronic use of supplemental war spending bills, which added to the national debt. In February 2009, President Obama told Congress, "For seven years, we have been a nation at war. We will no longer hide its price." In April 2009, Obama requested tens of billions more in supplemental funding for the wars, but wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "This is the last planned war supplemental."

That was the last supplemental. And he's going to pull troops out of Iraq. Tell us another one, Barry. Gregg Carlstrom (Al Jazeera) notes the obvious and possibly a damn breaks for others to address reality as well:

The US will almost certainly maintain a small long-term presence in Iraq - mostly troops serving in training roles - although Obama insists the vast majority of troops will be gone by 2012.
The withdrawal remains broadly popular in Iraq, and Iraqi politicians endorse the timetable in public. But Hussain said many are using different language in private.
"Iraqi forces are begging the US not to withdraw, begging them to stay in order to avoid chaos, because the institutions of the state are not ready as of yet.
"Many parties are asking the US not to be hasty, not to withdraw."
A longer occupation, of course, would require the US to renegotiate the so-called "status of forces agreement," the 2008 deal between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

Did you catch it? "Would require the US to regnegotiate the so-called 'status of forces agreement'"? Yes, it can be renegotiated. Fred Hiatt hints at that in the Washington Post but didn't have the guts to say it. Good for Gregg Carlstrom. For those late to the party, this community supports an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. That's not the point of the excerpt. The point is the SOFA is not "The war ends . . ." It's really astounding how pathetic Tom Hayden, for example, is since he allows that lie to take hold despite his historical knowledge of all the Paris Peace Talks. The SOFA was not a treaty to end the war. Treaties that end wars are highly specific about that aspect. The SOFA replaced the yearly UN mandate. It allowed the US to remain on Iraqi soil for three more years. It does not translate into US TROOPS MUST LEAVE. It is an agreement, a contract. It can be tossed aside, it can be extended. Those who insist it means the end of the Iraq War have never known what they were talking about.