Saturday, July 30, 2011

Keith Ellison's girl parts get itchy for Barry

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

HEY EVERYBODY, IT'S STUPID FREAK KEITH ELLISON. REMEMBER THE PUNK ASS CRY BABY CONGRESSMAN IN 2008?

REMEMBER HIM USING COMMITTEE TIME TO PLUG HIS LOVER BARRY O? TIME AND AGAIN, DURING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY, THERE WAS LITTLE KEITH WASTING HIS TIME AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, HIS CONSTITUENTS TIME BY TURNING HIS TIME IN EVERY HEARING INTO A TESTIMONIAL FOR CANDIDATE BARRY O.

KEITH ELLISON STILL CAN'T MAN UP ALL THESE YEARS LATER.

THE RIDICULOUS KEITH STEPPED OUT OF HIS WEDDING DRESS AND LEFT THE LAND OF PLAYTIME LONG ENOUGH TO SNAP OF BARRY O'S EFFORTS TO GUT THE SAFETY NET, "I WISH HE WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. BUT I DON'T BLAME THE PRESIDENT FOR IT. HE DOESN'T WANT TO CUT THESE PROGRAMS."

YES, HE TRULY IS THAT STUPID AND THAT MUCH IN LOVE.

KEITH ELLISON, KNOCKED UP IN 2008 BY BARRY O, AND STILL READY TO BEAR THE LOVE CHILD.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today Terry Gross flaunts her stupidity and her smutty by re-airing one of her stupidest interviews ever -- one of the reasons Fresh Air was pulled from several radio stations last year -- with a "dominatrix." No one needs that s**t on the public airwaves, do you understand? There's enough going on in the world that NPR doesn't need to work the blue room. Terry goes there repeatedly. And it was her laughing (and playing) her 'comedian' friend using the word fa**ot over and over on her sho last year that was the last straw for some stations. Please note, that "comedian" went public weeks ago saying Tracy Morgan's homophobic rant as funny and fine. Of course he did. He's a homophobe himself. Terry Gross awful show needs to be pulled. The woman's an idiot, ill-informed and plays to the lowest common denominator repeatedly. She's also a little War Hawk as anyone who followed her coverage should be aware (including the way Ehren Watada was covered -- and if Terry's so wise how come she and her guests were SO WRONG about what would happen to Ehren?). In 2010, as Ann, Ava and I documented at Third, only 18.546% of Terry's guests were women. Yet another reason her tired ass needs to be retired. But it was yesterday's show with CJ Chivers of the New York Times and Transitional Council that we're noting right now. Chivers is in bed with the so-called rebels. No, the paper didn't do that in Iraq. From the interview.
Mr. CHIVERS: I don't know exactly what the air power is up in the air. I've been trying to get it at that. And the governments that are involved, when they sign on for NATO, some of them seem to get sort of nondisclosure agreements with NATO. So I don't really know. I'd rather - they also almost bombed me one day...
GROSS: Oh, my G**. Really?
[. . .]
Mr. CHIVERS: Well, we later approached - I mean it was one of those situations. We came back and, you know, I was suffering from some headaches and having trouble hearing. And so we came back and I, you know, I called the paper and let them know very briefly what had happened - told them I was fine. And then we started to ask a few questions. Because, you know, it struck me as unusual that they would bomb something that was very blown up. They would bomb something that was, in this case, behind rebel lines.
Oh, you poor baby. How awful for you, the American, visiting someone else's country and free to leave anytime you want. to experience what so many Libyans are going through right now as a result of that war. [We censored Terry's use of a religious deity's name in vain because we don't allow that here out of respect for all religions and those people who are religious.] I'm also confused as to why we need a history of Libya from CJ Chivers. Meaning whatever did or did not happen years and years ago. Is that supposed to be "perspective"? If so the biggest perspective and the only one that matters right no is that Barack said this would be a few weeks and it has been months, that Libya is an established and recognized government, that the CIA has backed the so-called rebels and that this is part of the AFRICOM dream. Don't expect CJ Chivers to ever put that in perspective while working for the New York Times or to acknowledge that his little scare is the sort of thing Libyan children are living with every damn day in and near Tripoli and for no legal reason at all.
Staying with NPR. today on The Diane Rehm Show's second hour, guest host Susan Page (USA Today) and panelists, Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers), Joby Warrick (Washington Post) and Jill Dougherty (CNN) discussed Iraq.
Susan Page: In Iraq, there's been another bomb blast targeting police this time in Tikrit. Do we see a pattern emerging, Jill? What's happening in Iraq?

Jill Dougherty: Well, Iraq, I guess you'd have to say the big thing is when do the Americans pull out? I mean, we know, according to the Status of Forces Agreement, that they're supposed to be out, the troops must leave Iraq by the end of this year, December 31st. But you do have some movement now among the Iraqis and certainly the U.S. would be open to that to keep the U.S. as trainers for a longer period. But, you know, with the mood about the war, it seems, you know, in both countries, it could be a problem to try to continue them. And so if, let's say, Afghanistan and Iraq, if the local military cannot take care of the security situation, then things can fall apart. It's a real dilemma.

Susan Page: And, in fact, these -- the bombing came just hours after the Iraqi prime minister was talking on the phone to Vice President Biden about the withdrawal of U.S. troops. What is the issue there? We need Iraqis to make some decisions, Nancy?

Nancy A. Youssef: Well, the real issue is that no Iraqi wants to come out publicly and say he asked for the occupation forces to stay on, however beneficial they may be to Iraqi security. And so al-Maliki came out and said the parliament must vote on this.


Susan Page: So that's a way for him to say I'm not asking, let's have the parliament?

Nancy A. Youssef: Yes, I mean, let's -- Really there's a game of chicken going on where the Iraqis are trying to see how close they can get to not asking and having the Americans still stay. And so we heard from Hoshyar Zebari this week who is the foreign minister. He said something quite interesting. He said, well, maybe we could work out a deal defense ministry to defense ministry. And so I went to the Pentagon and I said, would that be acceptable or do you have to have parliamentary support? And there's a debate going on right now about that and my sense is that no, they'd have to have the backing of the parliament. Because remember, the parliament is the one who approved the Status of Forces Agreement that allows us to stay until the end of 2011. And so what the Iraqis are looking for is the least they have to do to get the Americans to stay without having the onus of going to the public and saying, I asked for the forces to stay.

Susan Page: But do we want to be asked to stay? Or would we prefer to be able to go?

Joby Warrick: Yeah. It's there is a push within the administration to try to get some residual force there beyond the end of 2011 because of the regional concerns, because of Iran and all the things that it's doing in the region. We'd like to have a counter-balance to that. And -- but again, we have to be asked and now this, the whole negotiation process appears to be frozen. There's no movement in sight and if we are going to leave at the end of 2011, there's a lot of logistical things involved in that and we have to start moving now.

Nancy A. Youssef: You know, Jill talked about the cost of this and the financial pressures essentially to bring down war costs. The Congressional Research Service released a study earlier this year and they found that with fewer troops, it actually costs more per trooper in Iraq. In 2006 and 2007 at the height of the violence, it cost about $500,000 per trooper and that is the logistics, the equipment and getting that trooper there. We're now in 2010 and it was at $800,000 and so there is a cost factor in this. It is actually more expensive per soldier to keep them in Iraq even if there are fewer of them.

Susan Page: President Obama campaigned as a candidate on a promise to get the U.S. forces out of Iraq. So Jill, what if he fulfils that promise? We see troops coming out and the situation there really deteriorates. Does that mean we would go back in or do we just leave the Iraqis to themselves?

Jill Dougherty: I shudder to think what they would do. I'm not quite sure because, you know, you have legal issues governing the relationship between the two countries. You have the financial realities in the United States budget, which -- It's a perfect day to be talking about that. You have the American public, I think the last I looked, 30 percent support the war or the conflict. So it would be very, very hard to begin that over again.

Nancy A. Youssef: And also I think the question becomes what could the U.S. do to mitigate whatever emerges in that period because you're starting to see Iraqis sort of positioning themselves for the post-U.S. period and so the relevancy, the impact of the United States diminishes with every brigade that the United States pulls out. So if you keep 10,000, which is the number we hear tossed around at the Pentagon, what real impact could they have to stopping whatever the momentum ends up being in Iraq post 2011?
The Los Angeles Times reports that unnamed U.S. officials say the White House is prepared to keep as many as 10,000 U.S. troops around Baghdad and elsewhere in the country. That would be on top of the nearly 50,000 Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force personnel the Pentagon reports deploying "around Iraq" as of March 31 of this year.
The Pentagon is putting "multiple plans" in place to support U.S. troop operations in Iraq in 2012, Alan Estevez, the Pentagon's nominee to lead its logistics and materiel readiness office, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee at his confirmation hearing July 19. As contracts expire on food services, fuel, and logistics support, he said, the Department of Defense can almost immediately turn "the volume on [them] back up."
The U.S. embassy, which opened on new grounds in January 2009, is by far the largest in the world -- about the size of 80 football fields and 10 times bigger than any other U.S. embassy.
Saturday was to be the meet-up of political blocs at Jalal Talabani's home to discuss a number of issues including whether or not to extend the presence of US troops. , Ahmad al-Rubaye (AFP) reports that meeting has been axed. (Jane Arraf noted yesterday that people were saying the meeting wouldn't take place.) al-Rubaye explains Ali Mussawi delivered the news that the meeting was off: "He said the talks were postponed because President Jalal Talabani, who was to lead them, had to visit the northern city of Arbil to attend condolence ceremonies for the mother of Massud Barzani, president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region. She died on Wednesday." And as the White House pushes for an extension, there is silence. Dennis "DJ" Mikolay (Populist Approach) observes:
Apparently, despite the current president's tenacity for waging war, the once thriving anti-war left is uninterested in opposing him. Why? Were the peace-seeking activists of the past decade motivated more by a hatred of George W. Bush than they were a love of human life? Perhaps they believe that, unlike his predecessor's wars, the current president's are somehow morally justified?
Whatever the case, opposition to American interventionism seems to have gone the way of the Furby or the Pet Rock, meaning President Obama can wage as many wars as he likes with minimal criticism. That is a truly frightening realization. Who will the United States wage war with next? Iran and Syria seem likely contenders for that dubious honor.
One must wonder how much blood must be shed before the American public demands a revamping of the "War on Terror?" How many Americans have to die before voters turn their backs on both the neo-conservative Republican and Progressive Democratic war machines?
Given the neutralization of anti-war sentiment in the United States, coupled with the lack of viable Republican presidential contenders, the probability that the United States will remain engulfed in war until at least 2016 is becoming increasingly likely. The sad moral of this entire affair, however, is that by casting their ballots for a pro-war candidate the American public got exactly what they asked for. And they don't even seem to realize it.

Al Mada has an interesting story
on a statement released by Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi. In the statement, Allawi's stating that the problems (Political Stalemate II) are not between Iraqiya and Nouri's State of Law but "our real problem" results from agreeing to a move that left them in a lesser position (Iraqiya won the March 2010 elections) and accepting tokens instead of real partnership. He notes the Erbil Agreement was not implemented. (He is correct. The Erbil Agreement ended Political Stalemate I -- the nine months after the March 2010 elections -- and when Nouri trashed the agreement, Political Stalemate II began.) Al Mada also reports that six deputies withdrew from Iraqiya yesterday for a number of reasons but chief among them the fact that they did not support Salman Jumaili as president of Iraqiya's bloc in Parliament. The paper also reveals that yesterday's efforts by State of Law to attack the Electoral Commission with a no-confidence vote found only 94 of the 245 MPs present voting in favor of the proposal.



Friday, July 29, 2011

Jobs?

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO BE PLAGUED BY THE QUESTION: "WHERE ARE THE JOBS?"

SINCE BEING ASKED THAT QUESTION, HIS POPULARITY -- OR WHAT REMAINS OF IT -- HAS BEEN ON A DOWNWARD SLIDE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT TODAY, AMERICA'S PRINCESS INSISTED THE QUESTION WAS NOT A FAIR ONE, "HOW CAN YOU ASK ME WHERE ARE THE JOBS? ME? WHAT OF CORNELL MCCLLELAN? DO WE NOT EMPLOY HIM AS OUR FITNESS TRAINER? DO WE NOT FLY HIM IN AND OUT OF CHICAGO SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK? IS THAT NOT A JOB I HAVE CREATED? AND WHEN I COULD HAVE LAID OFF CRISTETA COMERFORD WITH OLIVIA PARAS OR SAM KAAS DID I NOT DECIDED TO KEEP COMERFORD ON AS WHITE HOUSE CHEF . . . AND TO CREATE JOBS FOR OLIVIA PARAS AND SAM KAAS AS WHITE HOUSE CHEF? OVER AND OVER, IF YOU SEARCH THROUGH OUR SERVANTS QUARTERS, YOU WILL FIND THAT I HAVE REPEATEDLY CREATED JOBS. NOW THEY WILL BE UNEMPLOYED AFTER 4 YEARS, YES, BECAUSE I WOULD NEVER SPEND SO MUCH OF MY OWN MONEY ON THESE PEOPLE. BUT AS LONG AS THE U.S. TAX PAYERS ARE STUCK PAYING FOR MY FITNESS TRAINER,ETC., I WILL HAPPILY CONTINUE TO CREATE MORE AND MORE JOBS. LOOK AT REGGIE LOVE. HE IS MY 'BODY MAN' WHICH MEANS HE HOLDS THE PRESIDENTIAL HOSE WHEN IT'S TIME FOR ME TO TAKE A LEAK. JOB CREATION STARTS WITH ME."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The Council on Foreign Relations' Fellow for Conflict Prevention Micah Zenko weighs in with a piece today entitled "It's Hard to Say Goodbye to Iraq: Why the United States Should Withdraw this December" (Foreign Affairs):
Yet Baghdad seems unable to make up its mind. Some political leaders privately lobby for U.S. troops to stay, but only in training and advising roles. Still, most Iraqis and many members the Iraqi parliament are weary of a continued American military presence, which is problematic since U.S. officials insist that an updated SOFA be approved by the parliament. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani had requested that Baghdad's fractious political blocs decide by last Saturday whether to ask for an extension of U.S. troop presence into next year. They were unable to reach a consensus and have postponed additional negotiations on the topic "until further notice."
Still, according to anonymous U.S. officials, the White House is prepared to keep 10,000 ground troops in Iraq after the end of this year. It apparently has two reasons. The first is to prevent Iran from supplying improvised explosive devices and rockets to Shia militants in Iraq who have used such weapons to kill U.S. troops. According to U.S. officials, nine of the 15 U.S. soldiers who were killed in Iraq in June died from such attacks. The second is that somehow the mere presence of 10,000 U.S. troops will mitigate Iran's long-term influence in Iraq, which has been a proxy battlefield between Washington and Tehran for decades.
There are a few problems with this logic. For starters, it does not make sense for the United States to keep soldiers in Iraq to prevent Iranians from providing Iraqi Shias with weapons to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. As the Pentagon noted in its "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq" report last summer, "Iran will likely continue providing Shi'a proxy groups in Iraq with funding and lethal aid, calibrating support based on several factors, including Iran's assessment of U.S. Force posture during redeployment." In other words, Iran will continue its behavior as long as there are U.S. soldiers in Iraq to target, which suggests that the surest and fastest way to prevent further bloodshed is to withdraw the remaining U.S. soldiers on schedule.
Okay, for a new development (press wise), let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot for withdrawal talk:

Iraq's Foreign Minister is Hoshyar Zebari and he is in the news today with regards to withdrawal. Few appear able to figure out what he said today on the topic. Press TV puffs out its chest to insist that no US forces will be on the ground in Iraq after 2011 and that Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) emphasizes other details of today in Iraq and mentions Zebari only in passing. So what happened?
Press TV is wrong. AFP and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) get it right. AFP reports Zebari raised the issue of withdrawal and the yquote him stating, "Is there a need for trainers and experts? The answer is 'yes.' I think it is possible to reach a consensus on this. The Iraqi government alone cannot reach a decision on this issue. It needs political and national consensus; it's an issue all political leaders should back." Sinan Salaheddin explains, "Zebari and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appear to be preparing the public for some type of American military presence in Iraq past 2011, but have been trying to paint it as a training force as opposed to combat units."

A few e-mailed that the video at Press TV wasn't working. (The story had a video if you clinked on the link. I didn't say "link has text and video" because the video wasn't working.) New development: It is working now and the video report contradicts the written report. It also contradicts itself. In the video, we're told that extending the presence of the US military it's not just getting the approval of Parliament and three presidencies (they mean the president and two vice presidents) "and if it happens the extension would not be longer than two or three years." So it's not just that. Hmm. Well what does it involve? The reporter informs later in the segment, "The government cannot take such decision by its own the extension needs the approval of the Parliament, the prime minister and the president and this is not easy." Oh. Okay. So the only thing they added to the equation was . . . the Prime Minister.

Yes, that is rather ridiculous. They also fall for the claim that extending the SOFA or creating a new agreement is like setting a date for the elections and needs the same body to approve it. Nouri became prime minister in 2006. At the close of that year and at the close of 2007, he demonstrated he could extend the US military presence without the approval of anyone. (Parliament objected both times but did not punish him and by refusing to do so they've allowed this to be a power of the prime minister.) Today Lara Jakes (AP) reports Nouri posted a message to his website stating that it was up to Parliament and that he had spoken of the issue with US Vice President Joe Biden yesterday. AFP quoted a statement from Nouri's office yesterday on the phone call, "The prime minister assured Mr. Biden that in the end it is up to the parliament to decide whether the country needs American forces to stay or not after the end of this year." Alsumaria TV notes the statement from Nouri also said "he expects the leaders of Iraqi political blocs to reach an agreement in this regard during their upcoming meeting. On the other hand US vice President stressed that the USA support Iraq government in facing different challenges in the inside and the outside and stressed on the necessity of ongoing strategic relations between the two countries."


Ali Abdel Azim (Al Mada) reports on a meeting yesterday between State of Law (Nouri's political slate) and Iraqiya (Ayad Allawi's) in which both sides are stating efforts were made in anticipation of Saturday's big meet-up at Jalal Talabni's. Iraqiya's excited that the defense ministries were discussed. Dar Addustour notes that the rumor is Abdul Karim al-Samarrai, currently Minister of Science and Technology, will be nominated to be Minister of Defense. However, meet-ups don't always take place. Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweets:

janearraf
jane arraf
Whether the meeting takes place this weekend or not, one thing is being extended. The United Nations Security Council notes:
The Security Council today extended the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for another year as it welcomed recent security improvements in the country but stressed the need for further progress on the humanitarian, human rights and political fronts.
In a resolution adopted unanimously, Council members agreed to continue the work of UNAMI for a period of 12 months, in line with the latest report of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the work of the mission.
The resolution noted that Iraq's security situation had improved "through concerted political and security efforts" and added that further advances will be made through meaningful political dialogue.
All communities in the country should be involved in the political process, refrain from statements or actions that aggravate tensions and reach "a comprehensive solution on the distribution of resources," according to the resolution.
Council members urged the Government to continue to promote human rights, including by supporting the country's Independent High Commission for Human Rights and by developing strategies to ensure that women can play a much greater decision-making role in society.
As noted earlier, State of Law is said to have played nice with Iraqiya in a meeting yesterday. They had every reason to. They needed support on a measure. Today they were set to take to Parliament in an attempt to do away with the Electoral Commission. However, Dar Addustour reported that Iraqiya decided yesterday not to vote to sack the chair of the EC or its members. What does the Electoral Commission matter? It's regularly cited as a body that can be trusted. It's independent. Nouri attempted to seize control of it a few months back but there was push back (including from the committee). In March 2010, Nouri declared himself the winner of the March 7th elections via his own polling (which he released to reporters -- some like NPR presented it as fact and did not credit where they were getting their numbers) before the votes were even counted. When the votes were counted, his State of Law came in second to Iraqiya. Even with relatives on the Commission and even with his veiled threats and explicit whining, the Electoral Commission refused to change the results enough to call State of Law a winner. Had they not been present and independent, there would have been no block on Nouri at all or even the pretense of fair elections. Before what happened today, a refresher -- Iraqiya got the most votes in the March 7th elections. Shortly after Political Stalemate I ended, a small group of Iraqiya members broke with the larger group. This smaller group is known as White Iraqiya. With that in mind, Aswat al-Iraq reports State of Law made their move in Parliament today as planned and they did not have much support. As their proposal went down in defeat what did Nouri's group do? Did you guess tantrum time? You are correct. They stomped their feet and stormed out. An unnamed MP tells Aswat al-Iraq, "The State of Law Coalition and the White al-Iraqiya Alliance have withdrawn trust from the Elections Commission" and when others did not support them, the two groups withdrew from the session.
As Violet Newstead (Lily Tomlin) tells Judy Bernly (Jane Fonda) in 9 to 5, "Well, I'll be damned. Just look who got paid off for services rendered." Yesterday Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reported 50 members of tubby tyrant Moqtada al-Sadr's encounter group won prison release despite being convicted and behind bars "for crimes including murder, kidnapping and attacks on U.S. troops." The convicted were pardoned "by President Jalal Talabani at the request of the Prime Minister Nouri Maliki" -- no doubt to allow the convicted to self-empower themselves in the cut-throat 'new' Iraq. Mini-blowhard Moqtada insisted and spat that US forces would not remain in Iraq beyond 2011 or he was going to get his Mehdi militia back together. Then he infamously did a complete turn around on the issue stating he would not reform his militia. Why? Again, "Just look who got paid off for services rendered."



Thursday, July 28, 2011

There's no there there

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O CONTINUES TO HIT NEW LOWS.

IN GALLUP'S POLLING HE'S AT AN ALL TIME LOW.

THINGS ARE SO DESPERATE THAT ROBERT REICH PUTS DOWN THE POM-POMS TO TRY WHORING:

A president can be forgiven for compromising. That the health-care law doesn’t include a public option, that financial reform doesn’t limit the size of the biggest Wall Street banks, that the NSA is still spying on Americans, even that cuts may have to be made to Medicare or Social Security—all are worrisome.


THE ONLY RESPONSE TO THAT IS, "WIPE THE CUM OFF YOUR FACE AND PUT YOUR CLOTHES ON, IT'S TIME TO GO."

REACHED FOR COMMENT AMERICA'S PRINCESS INSISTED ALL WAS FINE AND DANDY AND THAT HE HAD PLENTY MORE SCARE TACTICS TO TROT OUT IF HE DOESN'T GET HIS WAY "WHATEVER THAT IS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT BECAUSE I CHANGE MY MIND A LOT. GOTTA' GO. MY MANGINA'S ALL ITCHY."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Crystal Nicely: For most of the family members, we were thrown into this new role unexpectedly and unprepared, but we have taken it in stride with determination and hope of the future. We have discovered is that we could never have prepared ourselves for what we face on a day to day basis while taking care of our loved ones. For me, I am not only my husband's caregiver, non-medical attendant, appointment scheduler, cook, driver and groomer, but I am also his loving wife faced with my own stresses and frustrations. To be clear, this is not an issue of being overwhelmed with caring for my husband for there is no other place on earth I want to be other than by his side. I am sure that many of the other caregivers would agree. What is upsetting is the lack of support, compassion and benefits for these individuals. It needs to be just a little bit easier. Many of us left our lives back at home and assumed a new role and life at Walter Reed -- as many caregivers have done across the country. Simply put,life her isn't a picnic. It is a bittersweet struggle of coping with new identities and new norms, whatever those may be. I first wish to address the most difficult and disheartening issue that continues to be a problem and barrier at Walter Reed. There is not much these days my husband can do without me or someone at his side. We attempt to function independently, but the reality of his injuries requires that I be close to his side, and even if I am away for only short periods someone must be there. This is part of our new normal. Without his prosthetics Todd is unable to perform many of the very basic Activities of Daily Living (ADL) that are taken for granted by so many. The process to serve as an NMA is tedious, particularly at a time when we must oversee all the other parts of our household and our lives. I am not enlisted so it is frustrating when I'm expected to carry on as if I were, when the circumstances I have now are so much bigger than that. This is an additional and unnecessary burden for the spouses and family members. This continual process of reapplying to be an NMA feels as though I am being assessed on my love and care for Todd, or my value to him and his condition. But helping him through his treatment is what I want to do. How could I ever ask someone else to step away from their lives to come do what we so proudly do, loving and caring for our husbands. It's almost disheartening to think that someone no matter how willing they may be can care for my husband more than I can. It hurts just to consider having someone else there instead of me sharing and growing in this experience with my husband. A lot of us come from jobs or school, and there are those that have children to look after as well. Personally, I was attending school before this. Now I have to consider the very expensive life that lies ahead for my husband and me.
Crystal Nicely was testifying to Congress this morning. In her opening remarks, she broke down several times -- more than understandable. We're going with her prepared remarks above and not what she delivered due to the fact that she edited for time and I felt there were too many details in her written remarks that needed to be shared. When a VA official drones on and on forever, you're glad there's a time limit for opening statements. When someone is sharing the details they live with, as Crystal Nicely did, there just isn't enough time to get it all in. I'm noting this because someone's going to e-mail (or call) and say, "Oh, you ignored her crying" or something similar. There is nothing wrong with crying and she was speaking of difficulties she faces. It was very brave and strong of her to speak, it was very brave and strong of her to continue speaking. Repeating, we're excerpting from the written statement because it includes the points she made plus additional details and I think those details need to be included.
"Good morning and welcome to today's hearing where we are going to examine the lifetime costs of supporting our newest generation of veterans," declared Senator Patty Murray bringing the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing to order. "As we all know, when our nation goes to war, it's not just the cost of fighting that war that must be accounted for, we must include the cost of caring for our veterans and families long after the fighting is over. And that is particularly true today at a time when we have more than a half a million Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in the VA health care system. That's an over 100% increase since 2008. This presents a big challenge and one that we have no choice but to step up and meet if we're going to avoid many of the same mistakes we saw with the Vietnam generation. But it's more than just the sheer number of new veterans that will be coming home that presents a challenge for the VA. It's also the extent of the wounds -- both visible and invisible -- and the resources it will take to provide our veterans with quality care. Through the wonders of modern medicine, service members who would have been lost in previous conflicts are coming home to live productive and fulfilling lives. But they will need a lifetime of care from the VA. Today we will hear from the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, the RAND Corporation and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. In an effort to help us understand and quantify these costs and to ensure that we meet the future needs of our veterans and their families. And today we are so fortunate to be joined by one of those brave family members, Crystal Nicely, who's not only a wife but also a caregiver to her husband Marine Cpl Todd Nicely. Todd was seriosly injured by an IED in the southern Helmand province of Aghanistan. Since that time, he's come home to fight every day, focus on his recovery and I even heard yesterday that he's already starting to drive again and I want to take a moment to say thank you so much for your service to our country. You have shown bravery not only as a Marine in Afghanistan but also through the courage you have displayed during your road to recovery. I invited Crystal here today because I think it's incredibly important that we hear her perspective. The costs we have incurred for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and will continue to incurr for a long time, extend far beyond dollars and cents. When I first met Crystal last month while touring Bethesda Naval Base, her story illustrated that. Crystal's here today to talk about the human costs and that cost is not limited exclusively to the service members and veterans who fought and are fighting our wars but it is also felt by the families of these heroes who work tirelessly to support their loved ones through deployments and rehabilitation day in and day out. Many like Crystal have given up their own jobs to become full time caregivers and advocates for their loved ones. Last month, while testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Mike Mullen told me that without the family members, we would be no where in these wars. I couldn't agree more and after you hear Crystal's story that will be even more clear."
Along with Crystal Nicely, the Committee heard from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America's Paul Rieckhoff, the CBO's Heidi Golding, the RAND Corporation's James Hosek and the GAO's Lorelei St. James.
Excerpt.
Commitee Chair Patty Murray: Mrs. Nicley, I want to start with you. You know when I first met you up at Bethesda, I was really disconcerted when you told me that you'd been waiting forever for your husband to finish his joint disability evaluation process. You had to wait almost 70 days for approval of a simple narrative summary. I went and checked and what I understand is that the summary only needed to state the obvious, that your husband was indeed missing two legs and two arms. And that essentially sat on someone's desk for more than two months. That is really unacceptable and my apologies to you and your family on behalf of that. But I wanted you, as you shared with me a little bit about what you were going through for those many days while this country essentially put you on bureaucratic hold.
Crystal Nicely: I think Todd's therapy is very important but he got to a point in his therapy where he was able to do more stuff more independently which didn't require his therapist to be there, I guess, during the whole time. So, it's kind of like -- I don't know if it's a requirement -- I don't know whether it's Marine Corps procedure that they go into therapy. And if Todd was not being taught new things or it was just getting redundant over and over again. So he had pretty much accomplished much of what he had wanted to in that time frame which meant he was taking up more space that other people could have been utilizing the therapist and so, I guess, why pay for his therapy? Or why if you could be paying it for somebody else? So it was a waste of time, I guess.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: What were you spending your time doing all of that time?
Crystal Nicely: Support. Taking Todd back and forth to therapy and just helping him with the daily living.
Committee Chair Patty Murray: You talked to me a little bit about Coordinators of Care, that they were coming through, changing every two months, and that you knew more than they did and they left and then you were training the Corrindators of Care. Can you share with us a little bit about that?
Crystal Nicely: I don't want to say that all of them are at fault due to the situation because of the way it is but the way that the military site has all of the liasons coming in and out is very frustrating because they're not MOS specific.trained in the jobs that are being asked of them. So they come here without the knowledge of what they're expected to do and take the time while they're here to learn what they're doing. And by the time that they've adjusted and maybe absorbed some of it, it's time for them to leave again and new individuals come in who are still not MOS specific. So that doesn't help us with what they're here for is the frustration and helping to take the stress off of the families and able to do the things that are necessary and instead, me personally, had to look for outside assistance from -- whether it was other family support or my case manager -- but was not assisted on the military side of things. That doesn't aid and for me in the beginning of the family process it's hard to open up to people and trust individuals. So to be able to get a connection with somebody and to have somebody there for the short period of time and then transition out and give us somebody else is not allowing us to have that connection or allow us to open up to them because, okay, if we come to you, what are you going to do for me because I know more than you do? So it's extremely frustrating. I know that they're working on it but it's extremely frustrating.
Committee Chair Patty Murray: You are a tremendous advocate for your husband and I am extremely impressed with what Todd is capable of doing and I know that that's -- your proud of that as well. I also know that he needs you at his side and you are there every single minute doing that. You met many people through this process. What does somebody do who doesn't have a wife or a live-in caregiver?
Crystal Nicely: I think -- Oh, boy. That's hard because you do see it in some cases. The family support is maybe not there or maybe not there for the right reasons. I think because of the lack of -- I don't want to say lack of knowledge, their ability to assist in a lot of ways and the lack of compassion when it comes to these guys, there next choice would be to reach out to somebody, I don't know, that whether it's through the military side of things or the hospital because the hospital staff is wonderful -- I guess there's not really a way to say this --
Committee Chair Patty Murray: Maybe if you can share with this Committee, like you did with me, a little bit of what your day is like.
Crystal Nicely: Well here recently a lot easier than normal because Todd has strived to become very independent with his prosthetics. Without his prosethetics, it would be -- I would be doing the work for two people. With his prosthetics and because of his knowledge with what he's been able to absorb with his therapist and his daily work in putting into therapy. I basically just observe and watch and if he needs assistance, then I assist him, if he asks of course.
Committee Chair Patty Murray: Well thank you and thank you again for your courage in being here too.
I am not interested in Paul Reikoff. As per usual, Paul wanted to go Water Cooler instead of addressing issues. No, not every veteran is worried about "the default." Adam Kokesh (Adam vs The Man airs on RT Monday through Friday at 7:00 pm EST and streams online) is an Iraq War veteran who's been mocking the 'crisis' (rightly so). But let's get one thing clear, if the doomsday that dime-store economist Paul used the hearing to portray came true, everyone would suffer. Don't whine that veterans benefits aren't getting paid. If the whole country were to go under (it's not going under), then, yeah, veterans would be up a creek without a paddle, just like everyone else. They are American citizens and they will suffer the same economic plight that other Americans suffer. Paul's grand standing was, as usual, done with one eye to the gallery, hoping he'd get some camera time. If a significant number of veterans are truly spooked by the White House and media narrative on the debt ceiling, shame on Paul for refusing to tell them that everything's fine. Life does go on and it will go on. Calm down, America. If we had a qualified leader in the White House, calm would be dictated. Instead we have someone who wants to gut the safety net and is willing to scare the nation in an attempt to get them to go along with that.
The government has many debts and obligations and they owe as much on any promise to any American citizens. In terms of paying, the government is taking in more than enough money to service the debt. It can't pay it off. But, as with a VISA or Master Card bill, it can make the monthly payment even though it can pay off the full charge currently. To pretend otherwise is outrageous and, when the manufactured crisis is over, people better be demanding answers from the White House over the administration's efforts to, in effect, create the equivalent of a Y2K panic. And should the White House not pay the bills, Barack should be impeached. Bill Clinton is correct in his legal assessment (though the White House wants to dismiss it -- and, on top of that, to question his understanding of the Constitution because he's not taught it in X years -- the Constitution hasn't changed with regards to the powers of the president). Not only could Barack raise the ceiling right now on his own but if the magic day arrives and it's not raised, he can raise it under the powers of the presidency in a national emergency. The money is there. The powers are there. This stinks of self-created drama on Barack's part.
FYI, if you still don't grasp Harry Reid's proposal, Brian Montopoli (CBS News) covers it here in a realistic manner. Back to the hearing, last excerpt:
Committee Chair Patty Murray: Ms. St. James, I wanted to ask you while you were here, I recently heard some very disturbing complaints from a female veteran. She told me she had a great deal of difficulty in accessing appropriate, safe care for herself. She'd had some exams from a doctor with the exam room open to a crowded hallway, had been harassed by male veterans while trying to get mental health care and other things. And I'm concerned about the lack of separate women only in-patient mental health care units that we're hearing about as well. So I'm very concerned that the VA is not strategically planning for the increasing number of women veterans, something Mr. Rieckhoff mentioned as one of the costs of this war. Can you share with this Commitee how many of VA's backlogged construction projects involve improvements needed just to protect the privacy and safety of women veterans?
Lorelei St. James: I really, excuse me, don't have that specific information. I do know that there are initiatives that VA includes in its planning process but I don't know specifically if that's one.
Committee Chair Patty Murray: Is that something you can find out for us?
Lorelei St. James: We can certainly get back to you on that.
Committee Chair Patty Murray: Okay. I'd really appreciate that. Ms. Golding you testified that the medical cost for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans between 2011 and 2020 totaled between $40 billion and $55 billion. That number of course doesn't take into account the cost of paying for previous generations that we're still responsible for. CBO did another report earlier this year on possible ways to reduce the deficit where they made a couple of recommendations about veterans programs. I don't support those specific proposals because they negatively impacted benefits which I believe we shouldn't be touching. But I do believe that there are ways we can be more effective with tax payer dollars but not diverting it from direct delivery of services and health care. I wanted to ask you this morning do you believe there's enough excess and duplication that can be addressed to make VA more efficient without negatively impacting services?
Heidi Golding: Uhm, just one or two points that I want to make on that. And the first is that we also have projections for the 2011 - 2020 time frame for VHA for all veterans and the budget would grow -- not the budget but the amount of -- the cost to treat those individuals would rise from the $48 billion in 2010 to under the one scenario $69 billion and the higher scenario -- which included higher medical inflation and so forth, I think it was $85 billion so in the lower case, we're talking about an increase of about 45% over the next ten years which is a substantial increase in order to be able to provide health care for all enrolled veterans. Now we have not -- We do not make policy recommendations and we do not in that paper look at options to and we have not looked at efficiencies. I cannot tell you about that specifically. You're aware of our budget options so we do have a couple of options in that. But it may also involve just not efficiencies but it may involve shifting some costs or --
Committee Chair Patty Murray: If we just do efficiency and shift costs will we meet that projection that you just made.
Heidi Golding: I cannot tell you unfortunately.
Committee Chair Patty Murray: Mr. Hosek a 2008 RAND study concluded that there was a possible connection between having PTSD, TBI and major depression and being homeless. Last month Amd Mike Mullen expressed concern about repeating the mistakes we made after the Vietnam War and said, "We are generating a homeless generation, many more homeless female veterans. And if we're not careful, we're going to do the same thing we did last time." I'm quoting him. Can you walk me through the costs -- both budgetary and human -- of caring for veterans after they become homeless and of using care as a tool to prevent homelessness?
James Hosek: [. . .]
Committee Chair Patty Murray: You want to turn on your mike?
James Hosek: Thanks. Unfortunately, I can't give you estimates of the costs. My concern, which I foreshadowed in my testimony is that there may be a value in being more pro-active in guiding people as they leave the service. Right now when service members leave the service, they receive an out brief. That out brief covers, among other things, the benefits they're entitled to and-and of course advised them that they'll have a post-deployment health assessment and a six month follow-up of that if they're still in the service and leave later on. But this information comes at them very fast. And even though it's provided -- which is a good thing -- I'm afraid that many of them don't really absorb it at the time. And when they leave the military and go out and need care or need to learn about their VA benefits or need to learn about job search upport, they really don't know where to turn. They haven't necessarily absorbed or remembered what they were told. And what our research indicates is there isn't readily available, cohesive, easily accessible sources of information. Now people absorb information in two ways: When it's pushed at them or when they pull for it. And a lot of the discussion that we've received has to do with the push of information, that is just making it available. But the fact that there isn't readily available, cohesive sources of information -- something that Paul referred to -- I think is important to.
And we'll stop there. Do you even remember the question he was asked? About homeless veterans, about the cost and about whether care could impact that. He goes on and on and uses his own buzzwords but where is his answer? Okay, they're getting info as they leave and it's not being recalled because the info is overwhelming. That's one sentence. And I didn't need to whine about "available, cohesive sources of information" or any other time waster.
I am not including Senator Scott Brown who acted as the Ranking Member for the hearing because Ava covers Brown and will be covering him tonight at Trina's site as usual. For an overview of Brown's hearing style, you can see "Ava spills Scott Brown's dirty secret" from June. Right now Wally's planning to cover Senator Johnny Isakson (cover at Rebecca's site tonight) and Kat's going to go into the economy at her site.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Time to start booking a flight home?

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS IN A TIZZY AS HIS HOPES AT A POST-WHITE HOUSE REALITY SHOW LOOK LESS AND LESS POSSIBLE.

OVER A THIRD OF AMERICANS HAVE TURNED ON AMERICA'S PRINCESS AND HIS SAGGY MAN BOOBS AND POLLING CURRENTLY SHOWS THE G.O.P.'S MITT ROMNEY WHIPPING BARRY O LIKE A RED-HEADED STEP-CHILD.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O STATED, "I'M CONFLICTED. ON THE ONE HAND IT MAKES ME SAD, ON THE OTHER IT MAKES MY MANGINA MOIST."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The RAND Corporation is in the news cycle. AP reports their new book (The Long Shadow of 9/11: America's Response to Terrorism) finds that the United States government made many mistakes including "launching a war in Iraq that did little to weaken al-Qaeda" presumably weaken them in the world since al-Qaeda had no Iraq presence until after the start of the Iraq War and other mistakes include "actions that helped militant groups recruit more followers, like the detainee abuse committed at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad."
Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops." The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while arguing this is the answer. If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing else happens, you may have read the already read the report. CBMs may strike some as what the US military was engaged in after the Iraqi forces from the central government and the Kurdish peshmerga were constantly at one another's throats and the US military entered into a patrol program with the two where they acted as buffer or marriage counselor. (And the report admits CBMs are based on that.) Sunday Prashant Rao (AFP) reported US Col Michael Bowers has announced that, on August 1st, the US military will no longer be patrolling in northern Iraq with the Kurdish forces and forces controlled by Baghdad. That took years. And had outside actors. The authors acknowledge:
Continuing to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level negotiations, and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish troops. While U.S. civilian entities could help implement CMBs and mediate political talks, the continued presence of U.S. military forces within the disputed internal boundaries would be the most effective way to prevent violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds.
As you read over the report, you may be struck by its failure to state the obvious: If the US government really wanted the issue solved, it would have been solved in the early years of the illegal war. They don't want it solved. The Kurds have been the most loyal ally the US has had in the country and, due to that, they don't want to upset them. However, they're not going to pay back the loyalty with actual support, not when there's so much oil at stake. So the Kurds were and will continue to be told their interests matter but the US will continue to blow the Kurdish issues off over and over. Greed trumps loyalty is the message. (If you doubt it, the Constitution guaranteed a census and referendum on Kirkuk by December 31, 2007. Not only did the US government install Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in 2006, they continued to back him for a second term in 2010 despite his failure to follow the Constitution.)
Along with avoiding that reality, the report seems rather small-minded or, at least, "niche driven." Again, the authors acknowledge that as well noting that they're not presenting a solution to the problems or ways to reach a solution, just ways to kick the can further down the road and, hopefully, there won't be an explosion that forces the issue any time soon. ("Regional and local CBMs have the potential to keep a lid on inter-communal tensions that will, without question, boil beneath the surface for a long time. They cannot, however, resolve what is, at its heart, a strategic political dispute that must be resolved at the national level.") Hopefully? Page nine of the report notes that the consensus of US military, officials, analysts, etc. who have worked on the issue is that -- "given enough time -- Arab and Kurdish participants will eventually have a dispute that leads to violence, which will cause the mechanism to degrade or collapse."
The report notes that, in late 2009, Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq at that point) had declared the tensions between Arabs and Kurds to be "the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq." It doesn't note how the US Ambassador to Iraq when Odierno made those remarks was Chris Hill who dismissed talk of tensions as well as the issue of the oil rich and disputed Kirkuk.
The authors argue that the unresolved issues could still be solved (and "civil war is not imminent") but that "the window is quickly closing". So what's the problem? The authors explain:
The issues that divide Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, and other minorities in northern Iraq mirror the nation's most complex and contentious political challenges: disputed internal boundaries (which must be settled in order to determine the territorial boundaires of the Kurdistan region), the lack of clarity regarding control over Iraq's hydrocarbons, and the need to professionalize and integrate Iraq's military and police. More locally, Arab-Kurd disputes extend to the sharing of power on local governing bodies, the ethnic composition of local police, rights to previously seized or abandoned property, the jurisidiction and condut of Kurdish security and intelligence services, and protections for minority rights.
If the US military leaves can the US State Dept fill the role? While the authors note that the State Dept is interested in doing that and might be able to grab some roles, "U.S. diplomats would be ill-suited to join Kurdish and Iraqi security forces on armed patrols or at checkpoints, where disagreements on operations and tactics are more likely to lead to violence." The authors think the United Nations might be able to play a role in the CBMs but acknowledges that in June of 2009, UNAMI was uanble to please either side.
The report really ends there though the authors continue on -- including offering some ridiculous 'soutions.' Reality, if the US wanted to make an impact on the issue, the time to do so was long, long ago. It's an Iraqi decision and they'll have to decide it. And they'll most likely do so in a violent manner. The report notes, "Kurdish leaders hope that favorable demographic trends will strengthen their position over time, as will revenues from whatever energy contracts they are able to conclude themselves. For its part, Baghdad seems to believe that improvements to Iraqi Army capabilities will deter armed conflict and prevent the KRG from seceding."
Again, in the report the KRG exists in a vacuum. That's not the real world. Currently, Kurds are under attack in Iraq and it's a development the RAND Corporation study didn't even factor in. The Great Iraqi Revolution notes today, "Monday 25th July, 2011 -- 22 injured and killed yesterday and 1,200 families have now forcibly moved because of Iranian shelling in the North." Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh Tweets on the subject:
The Iranian government has been shelling northern Iraq -- and possibly entering northern Iraq though the US State Dept claims borders are in dispute -- for weeks now. The Iranian government maintains that Kurdish rebels (PJAK) are a threat to Iran and that Iran is defending itself. James Calderwood (The National) explains, "The Kurdish villagers have been caught up in an Iranian military offensive that began on July 16 against Pjak, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan. The organisation demands autonomy for Iranian Kurds and uses the isolated mountain range as a base to strike at military targets in Iraq." Rudaw adds:

Kurdistan has deployed 12,000 forces to an area along the Iran-Iraq border as ongoing fighting between Kurdish rebels and the Iranian military has killed civilians and raised concerns that Iranian troops are crossing into Iraqi territory.

Salah Dilmani, a high-ranking Peshmarga officer, told Rudaw that the Kurdistan Region has sent around 12,000 Peshmargas or Kurdish military forces, to the Pishdar border district where Iranian forces have reportedly launched ground attacks on the rebel fighters of the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) over the past two weeks.

"We will confront any forces that may attempt to cross the borders of Kurdistan," Dilmani said.

Hurriyet Daily News adds, "The Iranian army has launched a powerful operation against the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK, in Iran, reportedly crossing the Iraqi border as it intensified its efforts in recent days to reach the group's headquarters in the Kandil Mountains of northern Iraq." The Tehran Times states, "During a skirmish in Sardasht, West Azarbaijan, on Monday night, Basij members surrounded and killed a number of PJAK members but the rest of the criminals escaped. Earlier, Press TV reported that 35 PJAK terrorists were killed during the clash. According to the report, several PJAK members were also captured by the IRGC." Press TV also notes, "Iran recently deployed 5,000 military forces in the northwest of the country along the border with Iraq's Kurdistan. Military maneuvers are being held with the aim of stabilizing the border area." Today's Zaman observes, "Iranian authorities have called for the support of the international community in its fight against the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK) as the country has recently engaged in another round of deadly clashes with the terrorist group on the border it shares with Iraq's northern region ruled by semi-autonomous Kurdish administration." They may already have reason to believe they have the US government's support. Rudaw
speaks with a US political science professor:
William Anderson, professor of political science at Wright State University in Dayton Ohio believes that the Obama administration has taken a very soft approach toward Iran compared to the Bush administration.
"Since Obama came to power, the US policies towards Iran have changed," Anderson told Rudaw. "His administration has branded PJAK as a terrorist organization; therefore, it is unlikely that Obama would say anything about the fight between PJAK and Iran."
Alsumaria TV reports that as early as July 2nd, KRG President Massoud Barzani has been calling on the Iranian government to utilize a dialogue and stop their bombings. They also note, "Kurdistan Alliance senior official Mahmoud Othman criticized on the other hand the 'silence' of Baghdad central government and Kurdistan regional government towards Iranian-Turkish ongoing shelling on Kurdistan." (Turkey is shelling northern Iraq in pursuit of PKK -- another Kurdish independence group. Turkey does so with the approval of Nouri al-Maliki.) Now that's violence going on right now and if you're not getting what we're talking about when we point out that the RAND Corporation report presumes the KRG exists in a vacuum, this violence towards Iraqi Kurds is stirring up discontent within Iraq. Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Hundreds of civil activsts have launched a demonstration in front of Iran's Consulate in Arbil on Tuesday, condemning the continued Iranian bombardment of the border villages in Iraqi Kurdistan, criticzing the Iraqi government's silence towards violations against human rights, a Kurdish activist said."
Does the anger build for a few more weeks in silence and then boil over or are there any adults in the region who can address it? This is exactly the issue the RAND Corporation paper should have anticipated.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Whiner In Chief"
"Withdrawal?"
"Service members and veterans issues"
"The Wuss"
"Ask the real questions"
"3 women, 2 men"
"bill keller moves to the op-ed pages"
"Differences"
"Amy Winehouse"
"Amy Winehouse"
"Netflix, even more annoying"
"Mondays"
"Come back, Randy Vickers, come back!"
"Wah! Wah!"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY'S TURN TO CRY!"

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Wah! Wah!

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


CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TOOK TO THE AIRWAVES LAST NIGHT TO WHINE ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS TO WORK. IMAGINE IF AMERICA'S PRINCESS HAD TO WORK A 40 HOUR WORK WEEK AND PUNCH A TIME CLOCK. LITTLE DEAR MIGHT BREAK A NAIL.

BARRY O JUST KNEW HE'D GET SYMPATHY BUT IT APPEARS AMERICA IS NOW BORED WITH UNTALENTED CELEBRITIES WHO ARE MERELY FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Staying with the US-Iraq topic, the Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe Tweets:


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Will Nouri finally name a Minister of Defence"
"A little ditty 'bout Iraq and Iran"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Spanked on the Global Stage"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Kat's Korner: The Real and The Synthetic"
"Nepotism in hiring and US combat operations continue"
"Troy Yocum and veterans issues"


"The whores work it for Barry"
"THIS JUST IN! NEW TOLD LIES!"