Thursday, December 01, 2011

The three year coffee break

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O PLEADED WITH VOTERS YESTERDAY FOR "TIME" INSISTING THAT, DESPITE THE CONSTITUTION SETTING A PRESIDENTIAL TERM AT FOUR YEARS AND IN SPITE OF ALL HIS PROMISES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, THREE YEARS JUST WASN'T ENOUGH TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.

HE WAS PLEADING FOR MORE TIME TO DO HIS JOB AS HE, YET AGAIN, TOOK TIME OFF FROM HIS JOB TO DO A FUNDRAISER. OR TWO. OR THREE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


In what will hopefully be a front page piece on tomorrow's New York Times, Mark Landler reports that Nouri announced today that "he was open to the eventual return of American troops as trainers." That, of course, is not new. It's long been noted by the Iraqi press, you've had people with State of Law explaining that Nouri needed to be able to say he got all the troops out (and we've noted that Barack needed to pretend on that point as well). So welcome to the party, the appetizers and salad are gone, we just finished the entrees but maybe we can re-slice the dessert for your late arrival?
Mark Landler's piece will be an important one in tomorrow's paper and I applaud him for it but if it just doesn't feel all that amazing to me it's because we've been going over this now for almost two months while others have been silent or lied. Or while others have offered fantasies of Barack Obama.
One of the few not serving up fantasies of rainbows and lollypops was Spencer Ackerman. He writes for Wired and my thoughts on Wired are known but he gets credit for what he did. He gets a link today because a friend called in a favor. He's covering what Nouri said and also what Joe Biden, US vice president, said. And offering, "If Biden gets his way, then U.S. troops returning to Iraq next year won't just be training their Iraqi counterparts, even if that's how Maliki sells it to a skeptical Iraqi populace."
US troops going back in should remind you of something. It reminds me of filling in for Kat last night and noting, "What AFP doesn't tell you is that Rand Paul's measure would have ended the Iraq War, key point coming up, which means if Barack wanted to send US troops back into Iraq, he would need to get permission from the Congress." What was that about? Senator Rand Paul's bill to end the Iraq War finally had a vote on the Senate floor yesterday. Donna Cassata (AP) noted, "The Senate also rejected an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that would have ended the authority for using force in Iraq. The vote was 67-30." AFP reported: Senator Carl Levin voted against it and insisted, "I just am unwilling to take this risk during the critical transition period." What risk? Hadn't Barack declared the Iraq War over? What does Carl mean about "transition period"?
He means (a) it's not a withdrawal, (b) negotiations continue and (c) Barack might send troops back in. Rand Paul's measure would have ended the Iraq War which meant that if Barack wanted to send US troops back into Iraq, he would need to get permission from the Congress. 30 senators voted for Rand Paul's bill, 67 voted against it. Here are the ones who voted in favor of the bill:


Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Paul (R-KY)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Wyden (D-OR)

25 Democrats, 4 Republicans and 1 independent (Socialist Bernie Sanders). If you've forgotten, in 2007, candidate Barack stated that he was comfortable, after withdrawal, sending US troops back into Iraq if Iraq wasn't 'stable.' For more on that refer to the November 2, 2007 snapshot and this piece by Third. So passing Senator Paul's end the war bill would have been highly problematic for the administration. After the vote, Paul declared, "This year we have seen the President commit our armed forces to combat, while Congress has been ignored or remained silent. No present or future administration should be given an indefinite blank check to conduct military operations in Iraq by Congress. Congress must reclaim its constitutional authority over the decision to go to war, or to end a war -- is it one of the body's most important powers."
Let's move over to the violence reported today. Reuters notes a Balad Ruz car bombing left seven people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 1 life, 1 corpse was discovered in Mosul (a person "kidnapped in 2008"), a Kirkuk sticky bombing claimed 1 life and, dropping back to last night for the rest, a Udhaim roadside bombing injured a shepherd and a Samarra home invasion resulted in the deaths of "a fortune teller, his wife, sone and two guests."
In major news on violence today, Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers via the San Francisco Chronicle) reports that the Monday attack on Parliament was a suicide car bomber and Issa observes, "The admission that a suicide car bomber had penetrated the fortified Green Zone, the first suicide attack there since April 2007, sent a wave of concern across the capital about the abilities, and loyalties, of Iraq's security agencies." As Sheikah (Dar Addustour) notes the questions about the attack in terms of how heavily protected the Green Zone is and how a "strange car with unknown identities" was able to penetrate the Green Zone. Al Rafidayn notes the need for permits to carry explosives in the Green Zone and indicates that some aspect of the attack was caught on cameras "deployed" in the area. This is major news and has been treated as such in the Iraqi press for two news cycles. As part of Monday's violence, it was noted as an aside in the small number of US outlets that cover Iraq. And a large number of that small number treated the notion that it could be a suicide bomber as some sort of Iraqi delusion. But it was a suicide bomber (not a mortar or a rocket) and the US press is strangely silent.
The answer why can be found in CNN's write-up: "Violence in Iraq remains at its lowest overall level since 2003, according to the White House."
Of course, the press isn't supposed to run with a party line. The press is supposed to be independent and skeptical. It's supposed to be a watchdog forever questioning official pronouncements. But it doesn't do that. As noted this morning, in reply to visitors who felt their favorite news outlet had been treated harshly by me in yesterday's snapshot with regards to the coverage of Joe Biden's visit to Iraq, I was more than kind. Read those articles again, but do so after you go to Time magazine. and read Mark Halperin's "Surprise Visit." You'll note all the details you thought the press had hunted down on their own were in fact spoon fed by the White House.
While the White House pretends violence is at a record low, earlier this week Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reported violence was on the rise in Iraq with over 100 recorded deaths this month in Baghdad alone. Who was telling the truth? Sahar Issa who doesn't need to worry about how the truth will effect personal polling or an upcoming election.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)