Cedric's Big Mix: 2011-08-21

Saturday, August 27, 2011

From his latest vacation

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

ON THE EVE OF 9-11, AMERICA SAYS A BIG F**K YOU TO CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

THE PUBLIC SERVANT DECIDED WHAT AMERICA NEEDED FROM HIM WASN'T JOBS, A HEALTHY ECONOMY OR AN END TO WARS, JUST ANOTHER SCOLDING, JUST ANOTHER LECTURE.

DOES MISS PRISS BARACK EVER SHUT THE F**K UP?

AMERICA'S PRINCESS WANTS EVERYONE TO DO CHARITY OVER THE NEXT 2 WEEKS.

SOMEONE TELL THAT ASS THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT HIM, ALL WE SEE IS A MAN WHOSE FATHER NEVER MARRIED HIS MOTHER, ALREADY HAD A WIFE AND SKIPPED THE SCENE AS SOON AS HE WAS BORN. IN OTHER WORDS: TRASH.

TELL HIM TO SAVE THE SERMONS AND GET TO WORK ALL DAMN READY ON THE ECONOMY.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with the Libyan War. Wednesday's snapshot included:

Monday on KPFA's Flashpoints, Kevin Pina spoke with journalist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and he was then trapped in his hotel with shooting going on all around. Kevin Pina noted, "We're asking all of our listeners to please call the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry at 1-800-267-8376 and demand that Canada contact the Transitional National Council of Libya and tell them to respect the right of international journalists especially Canadian journalist Mahdi Darius Naemroaya. Again that number to contact the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry at 1-800-267-8376." There are, at best, jokes being made about the safety of unembedded journalists and, at worst, threats being made. On Tuesday's show, Dennis Bernstein featured an interview Mahdi gave RT.

And Wednesday night came Richard Boudreaux's "After Six Days, Journalists Freed in Libya" (Wall St. Journal). That article didn't include Mahdi's name but he and others at the Rixos Hotel were moved to another one. Instead of reporting on that -- a minor story -- or on the actual suffering the Libyans are experiencing.

Instead, we have a bunch of pampered little children who are now showing their soiled diapers to the public. And if that seems harsh, so does playing the victim insted of the journalist. No Matthew Chance and Jomana Karadsheh, you are not the story, you are the reporters. And CNN was never going to allow you to be harmed. The most 'damage' you experienced was a bunch of bad pay-per-view TV (or, as Matthew Chance whines, "an old DVD of Point Break" -- oh the tragedy!). Your continued histionics make you sound less like saps and more like tools of imperialism really reaching to sell the notion of 'my hard times under Gaddafi!'

Matthew Chance is such an idiot. Explaining their five-day ordeal -- Gaddafi had assigned youths to watch the foreign journalists. When Gaddafi disappears (to wherever) the youths are unsure what to do. No surprise there, they were flunkies of the lowest level on the chain (meaning independent decisions were not among their strengths so when those issuing orders began to flee Tripoli, the youths were left stupified). That's why they were the ones selected to protect the journalists. So everyone's in a holding pattern for five days (the so-called ordeal). Listen to the 'torture' the 'journalists' experienced: "The hotel's generator, which kept the electricity supply going, ran out of fuel. Then the lights kept going off." Oh, my goodness. Who knew that a war zone wouldn't be the New York Palace in Manhattan!!!! You mean to tell me that going into a war zone means you might not have electriticy around the clock and the lights might keep "going off"? The tragedy. In the future, all wars should only take place at four-star resorts with adequate room service.

And personal trainers!!!!! 'Brave' Matthew confesses, "We survived in the end on crisps and chocolate. It sounds odd but I actually managed to put on weight during my five-day ordeal." No, it doesn't sound odd, it sounds pathetic. Grow the hell up and stop trying to pretend that you were in any danger. You clearly weren't. Young men on orders to protect you didn't know what to do when Gaddafi disappeared so they made you remain at the hotel, which was not invaded, which was not hit by any bombs, which was the safest place you could have been in Triopoli because everyone knew journalists were present. As Matthew tries to paint a picture of himself as the next Patty Hearst, the reality is that, as he lets slip throughout, they weren't in prisoners in their rooms, they roamed through the hotel day and night. They (the journalists) decided they'd all share a common space and not individaul rooms. They (the journalists) they'd check out the basement. On and on it goes, this is not a hostage situation.

At best Matthew Chance had an amusing tale to share. Instead, these pathetic 'reporters' are trying to equate their little adventure with the serious danger that the citizens of Libya have been put into with the Libyan War. And, Jomana, when you're in the Red Cross vehicle, it's no time to cry. And when you know a camera's present, stop the waterworks and try to act like a reporter. As the only woman -- or 'girl' -- pictured, your little waterworks do a disservice to female journalists all over the world. Though you were never in any danger up to that point, acting like a cry baby once you're being escorted by the Red Cross makes you look unfit to cover any story (but may distract from the fact that you've clearly put on many pounds since leaving Iraq to mis-cover the Libyan War -- which, please remember, found Jomana repeatedly lying to various reporters about where she was actually from and her ethnicity -- apparently forgetting that she had Tweeted repeatedly about her background in the past and anyone could do a quick computer search and expose her myriad of lies). Your constant cry for sympathy refuses to acknowledge your silence on NATO's bombing of Libyan TV which targeted and wounded and killed journalists. Refused to cover it, refused to cover Amnesty International calling out that attack. Now you want sympathy because you stuffed your fat ass with candy and chips for five days while watching movies and roaming through the halls of the hotel in some sort of pathetic homage to The Breakfast Club. Susan Glasser on today's Diane Rehm Show (NPR -- second hour) stated that the 'journalists' were without food and water. That is incorrect. It is flat out wrong. And she needs to stop saying that.

It is a posh hotel with an indoor swimming pool and much more. It had 24 hour room service. For less than a week, food deliveries stopped. New food being delivered stopped. However, canned food was plentiful. Though some cry babies may not like to eat it, US troops in Iraq eat far less fashionable foods as do the people of Iraq. The cry babies had tons of canned food, Matthew even notes that in his report on the 'ordeal.' They were obviously sugar cravers (looking at the photos of them) and they chose to instead gorge on potato chips and candy. They were never without water. Were they horribly parched to the point of dehydration at any point (they weren't),they could've drawn water from the large, indoor swimming pool. They were in more danger of dehydrating in the hotel's sauna than they were from lack of water. (The hotel had a gym, a health center, two on site restaurants. That's why the claim of running out of food is so laughable. Two food establishments and room service? Food deliveries could have stopped for a month and the remaining guests would not have starved.) They're in far more danger in their new hotel (under 'rebel' control) than they were at the Rixos Al Nasr.

Yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints Radio, the first segment focused on the hotel issue.

Dennis Bernstein: We're going to take it to Canada now and be joined by Michel Chossudovsky -- he's with the Centre for Research on Globalization. He's been communicating with Mahdi throughout the day, Michel, are you with us?

Michel Chossudovsky: Yes, the situation is extremely serious because what happened is the independent journalists left the Rixos Hotel, that was yesterday. They were escorted to a new hotel under the auspices of the International Organization for Migration which is a UN body and the Red Cross and they were under the protection of these organizations and then they arrived in the new hotel, the Corinthia. The Corinthia turned out to be, in fact, a hotel which was under rebel control. They celebrated their 'liberation' so to speak, they had the promise to leave the following morning at twelve noon, 6 ED, in other words, six o'clock in the morning. And that was cancelled. And then what happened is you had rebel gunmen going around the rooms, using the pretext that they were going after the son of Gaddafi. And the whole place is, in fact, a new prison, and this time more seriously because the rebels control it and they are particularly the journalists who had the courage, determination and commitment to tell the truth about NATO atrocities. Particularly the bombing of the last few days which was devestating resulting in more than a thousand deaths and several thousand wounded.

Let's remember that the last time Mahdi spoke on Flashpoints was Monday and he made a point to stress what Libyans were experiencing and that he wanted out and felt bad for focusing on that when so many Libyans didn't have that option. The soiled diaper crowd never acknowledges the Libyan people, they just whine about the 'horrors' of Keanu Reeves DVDs and the food available in a war zone. Let's also remember the August 16th broadcast of Flashpoints included a segment with Dr. Khaled Al Bazelya is the head of Libyan Television's LEC division (their English language channel):

Kevin Pina spoke with him about the NATO attacks on Libyan TV for the last three weeks, resulting in the deaths of 3 journalists, with twelve more injured. "We are professional journalists. We have nothing to do with -- We are not politicians. We just transfer the news," Dr. Khaled Al Bazelya explained. "[. . .] We report what we see. We ask the International Journalist Association and Human Rights to look into this issue because journalists should be protected all over the world." Kevin noted the silence on the attacks.

Reviewing recent events in Iraq today, James M. Lindsay (Council on Foreign Relations) predicts, that whether the US departs or not, "don't be surprised when Iraq returns to the front pages later this year." While we wait to see if that forecast is correct, AP reports there will be a send-off ceremony this afternoon for approximately 160 Alabama Army National Guard members deploying to Iraq. This as the US and Iraqi governments continue to debate the details of extending the US stay in Iraq beyond December 31st. Dar Addustour reports that there is agreement on both sides regarding tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles but the number is still being debated (Iraq now wants no more than 8,000 troops while the US would like 20,000) and there is disagreement regarding immunity for US troops. From yesterday's snapshot:

Those who still need to believe in fairy tales should avoid the interview Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) did with Iraq's Ambassador to the US Samir Sumaida'ie who states, "The principle that there will be some military presence [in Iraq beyond 2011] to help train Iraqi military and police has been largely agreed upon." This jibes with both what US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said on Friday and what Ali al-Dabbagh (Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson) said over the weekend. Sumaida'ie addes, "You'll see it when you see it. Americans want everything now or yesterday. We don't do it like this. We do it in our own sweet time." Rogin adds:

Sumaida'ie tried to explain what's really going on here. He said that there is a consensus among all political players, with the exceptions of the followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, that Iraq needs some American military support, particularly when it comes to training, past the end of this year. "However, the form that this will take and the legal details are still being debated," he said.

He said the debate over the number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq has ranged between 8,000 and 20,000, and that they would be non-combat forces limited to the training of Iraqi military and police forces.

At Forbes, E.D. Kain examines US President Barack Obama's record on the wars and points out:

In Iraq, whatever troop draw downs have occurred have been coupled with increases in private military contractors. Replacing American troops with government contracted for-profit troops (we used to call these mercenaries) does not mean we're actually getting out of Iraq.

The issue of extending US troops on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011 was addressed on WBEZ's Worldview when Jerome McDonnell spoke with the RAND Corporation and Pepperdine University's Joseph Kechichian today. The discussion started with McDonnell noting that when they spoke about the Iraq War in 2003, Kechichian had predicted it would last a decade and McDonnell was dubious but, here it is, nearly nine years later. Excerpt.

Joseph Kechichian: During WWII and the Korean War, if we remember, we put hundreds of thousands of soldiers in both theaters. Eventually we would bring the vast majority back to the United States leaving behind core forces in both European theater and South Korea, obviously, under the demilitarized zone. In Iraq, the same situation applies as well. We've put, at one point, over a hundred and fifty thousand soldiers plus 150,000 mercenaries that were not technically soldiers but nevertheless they were Americans for the most part. So we had about 300,000 people there. We're down now to 48,000 or so. We're pulling most of the combat troops out. But we're going to leave behind -- as you said, in a new security forces agreement with the Iraqis -- a new SOFA, if you'd like, as it is known in its acronym -- between 10,000 and 20,000 soldiers for a very long time. I think that an accord will be signed between the two governments very soon. And we're going to have a longterm presence in Iraq for decades to come --

Jerome McDonnell: Now there are folks who think that's not -- There are folks who think that's not a great idea and that, really, we'd be doing better off just going to zero because of what a screwed up mess it is but there are a lot of people in Washington who want to stay there because of Iran and things.

Joseph Kechichian: Well in addition to Iran, Iran obviously is a very serious issue for us in the region for the foreseeable future but I think that there are -- I don't know the merits of leaving any soldier behind are worth contemplating at this point. Simply stated, we have invested way too much in Iraq right now. A pullout, a complete pullout, without having any kind of residue left there will essentially mean one thing and only one thing: That the war for Iraq was for naught and that we made a mistake.

It was a mistake, most illegal wars are (they're also crimes, which is why they're called "illegal wars"). Learning to admit that publicly and to speak it would go a long way in preventing future illegal wars. Or at least make the War Hawks and their media whores have to work a little harder -- or did no one else hear echoes of "He gassed his own people!" of Saddam Hussein and "using foreign mercenaries against his own people" about Muammar Gaddafi? (Here for a New York Times report by David D. Kirkpatrick and Rod Nordland going over that false assertion and others.)

Friday, August 26, 2011

Bill Keller's latest embarrassment

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

BILL KELLER WAS SUCH A DEVOTEE OF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THAT HE HAD THE FOOTY P.J.S WITH BARRY O'S FACE ON THE BACK FLAP.

NOW THE FORMER NEW YORK TIMES EXECUTIVE EDITOR IS MAKING NEWS FOR ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RELIGIONS OF VARIOUS G.O.P. CANDIDATES -- THE MAN WHO WAS EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF THE PAPER OF RECORD AND NEVER ASKED BOO ABOUT AMERICA'S PRINCESS BARRY O.

SEE RELIGION IS A SERIOUS POLITICAL ISSUE . . . WHEN YOU CAN USE IT AGAINST PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE. OTHERWISE, YOU SWEEP IT UNDER THE COVERS (AND GASP "DO ME BARRY! DO ME HARD!" -- OR AT LEAST BILL KELLER DOES).

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Luis Martinez (ABC News) reports, "The cost of U.S. military intervention in Libya has cost American taxpayers an estimated $896 million through July 31, the Pentagon said today." A matter of weeks, Barack Obama told the American people (via the foreign press since he wasn't even in the US when he started the Libyan War). We're also told that there must be cuts, cuts, cuts to US government spending. An unpopular war -- an illegal war -- that the American people never supported and almost one billion spent on Barry's little adventure. $896 million could have been spent on schools, seniors, children, jobs programs, you name it. Yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints Radio, one of the segments was a broadcast of a talk Michael Parenti gave on his book tour to promote his latest book The Face of Imperialism.

Michael Parenti: Now what does Libya teach us? I mention Libya in this book but I didn't say that much about it because this book was in production and all before this stuff started here. It came out in April. Libya shows us just what I've been trying to say. Libya's sin was that it had charted a different course. It had a leader, "dictator," as everybody called him. Nobody in the west, by the way Now you tell me in the last 20 years how many of you read and heard [Hosni] Mubarak of Egypt described as a dictator? He was always President Mubarak, isn't that right? That's right. President Mubarak. How many -- how many here hear the Saudi Arabia family described as dictators? No. Saudi Arabia. Man, come on. Libya is like Athens compared to Saudi Arabia. Yeah. It's run -- it's run by the Saudi family with their Wahhabi fanatical Islamics who, you know, throw acid in a woman's face if it is uncovered -- and creepos like that. Okay. So what we had in Libya is a 'humanitarian intervention' -- and I'll end it right here, if you read this book I hope you can anticipate these things --- sponsored by the UN which becomes aerial and ground war against the existing government and the people. Even when the government -- and this is what happened in Yugoslavia, which is in the book, and Iraq -- Even when the government calls and Libya too did it in the second month and offers to negotiate, the attacks continue because the goal is really not a negotiated settlement. The goal is to unsettle. And so they bombed Libya for six months just as they bombed Yugoslavia for two and a half months, almost three months. The bombing is sponsored by the United Nations, not the bombing of Iraq or Yugoslavia. With Yugoslavia, China and Russia vetoed it. This time China and Russia, not that close to or friendly with Libya, just abstained. But even with the UN going in, the attacks in each of these cases is not carried out by the UN, it's carried out by NATO. And behind NATO, it's carried out essentially by the US. And that means massive bombing, destruction of facilities, ports, houses, hospitals, food supply depots and the like. Drones, helicopter gunships strafing civilians. The loss of life estimates 20, 30, 40 a day of Libyan civilians who were the civilians that the NATO forces were 'protecting.' They came in to rescue them -- but to save you, we had to blow you up and kill some of you. Pretenses and lies about atrocities? I remember in the first week, somebody being interviewed -- and I think it was on Amy Goodman to -- and he said, "Yes, 10,000 have been slaughtered by Gaddafi." What? 10,000? The fight had just begun, these small 'rebel' groups, we hear. But somehow Gaddafi had gone out there and he had killed 10,000. Who? Where? What locales? For what motive? What were the disturbances that led him to do that? But these kind of things come up. What you do is you demonize the leader -- whether it's a [Slobodan] Milosevic, a [Manuel] Noriega or Saddam Hussein -- who was a butcher. Saddam Hussein was a killer and a murderer and a torturer. But when he was doing that, they loved him in Washington. They adored him. He was -- he was a staunch ally. They loved him. It's when he got out of line on the oil quotas, that's when they started. It's when he refused to privatize his economy, he kept it state run, and he started training Iraqis in engineering and sending them abroad -- men and women. It's when he kept some of the reforms that the previous democratic government had had. Remember, it was a democratic government back then. And when the US went in and said, "We're going to teach these poor wittle Iraqi-wakis what democracy is, teach them how to do democracy because they don't know." Five thousand year civilization, they don't know how to do democracy. But the Americans, we know how to do democracy. Look at our democracy. Isn't it great? Don't you feel good? I mean, it's the most expensive democracy in the world. We spend 20 billion dollars every four years to elect the president, I mean who wouldn't want to match that democracy? And then the role of the media --again so predictable. Massive demonization of the leader gives license to bomb his people. But not concerned about democracy in Egypt. Not concerned about democracy in Saudi Arabia. See, it's here. Let me go back to the first points of this talk, I'll be wrapping it up now. It's here that the liberal critics come in and say, "You see how confused they are. They're going against Libya because it's not a democracy, but they're giving aid to Saudi Arabia and to the dictator Mubarak for 30 years in Egypt. How confused." They're not confused, you're confused, you stupid ass. They know which democratically elected presidents are theirs and which ones are not that are really, sincerely trying to make changes like [Salvador] Allende was doing and people like that and those are the ones they target. They know which dictators they like and support and work with and which ones they dislike. And you can also see now the death squads will be coming in as in Kosovo and in Iraq. The IMF and the World Bank which Gaddafi kept out of Libya for forty years, they're already getting ready to come in. Oil companies are coming in but that was going to happen anyway because Gaddafi, in the last seven or eight years, he saw what happened to Iraq and he started softening and making overtures and saying, "Okay, SAPs, you can bring them in." Structural Adustment Programs -- meaning cutting back on the social wage, letting private capitol take over some of the oil companies and all that. He was -- He was beginning to. But not enough. Not enough. He was not a real vassal state. He was not leaving that thing wide open. He was still had certain protections in there and he also had abuses and the like to. The goal is privatization deregulate everything, every body's poorer, every body's weaker. Wipe out the social wage -- that is the social services and the communal needs that are there. The potential enemy state becomes a vassal state. That is just some of the things the book is about.

Also providing context is Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report -- link is text and audio):

The story is not over -- not by a long shot -- but the saga of the Libyan resistance to the superpower might of the United States and its degenerate European neocolonial allies will surely occupy a very special place in history. For five months, beginning March 19, the armed forces of a small country of six million people dared to defy the most advanced weapons systems on the planet, on terrain with virtually no cover, against an enemy capable of killing whatever could be seen from the sky or electronically sensed. Night and day, the eyes of the Euro-American war machine looked down from space on the Libyan soldiers' positions, with the aim of incinerating them. And yet, the Libyan armed forces maintained their unit integrity and personal honor, with a heroism reminiscent of the loyalist soldiers of the Spanish Republic under siege by German, Italian and homegrown fascists, in the late 1930s.

The Germans and Italians and Generalissimo Franco won that war, just as the Americans, British, French and Italians may ultimately overcome the Libyan army. But they cannot convey honor or national legitimacy to their flunkies from Benghazi, who have won nothing but a badge of servitude to foreign overseers. The so-called rebels won not a single battle, except as walk-ons to a Euro-American military production. They are little more than extras for imperial theater, a mob that traveled to battle under the protective umbrella of American full spectrum dominance of the air. They advanced along roads already littered with the charcoal-blackened bodies of far better men, who died challenging Empire.

WBKO reports there will be a send-off ceremony Saturday for the almost 600 Kentucky National Guard members scehduled to deploy to Iraq for a year. Angela Deines (Capital-Journal) reports that there was a send-off ceremony yesterday for 267 members of the Kansas National Guard who are headed to Fort Hood and then onto Iraq for a year long Operation New Dawn deployment. She quotes married couple Rosa and Spc Michael Comeau. The husband states, "It's never fun leaving home. But we kind of need the money." (The economy's been a better draft for the military than the old lottery system.) While Rosa Comeau states, "I just want him to leave so he can come back." This will be Spc Michael Comeau's second tour of duty in Iraq.

Some might find it strange for all these troops to be deploying on year long tours of Iraq in August 2011. But that's only if you really thought the US military was leaving December 31, 2011. Those who still need to believe in fairy tales should avoid the interview Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) did with Iraq's Ambassador to the US Samir Sumaida'ie who states, "The principle that there will be some military presence [in Iraq beyond 2011] to help train Iraqi military and police has been largely agreed upon." This jibes with both what US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said on Friday and what Ali al-Dabbagh (Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson) said over the weekend. Sumaida'ie addes, "You'll see it when you see it. Americans want everything now or yesterday. We don't do it like this. We do it in our own sweet time." Rogin adds:

Dar Addustour reports that political activists and youth organizations are gearing up for a demonstration September 9th in Baghdad's Tahrir Square. The protesters assert that the actions on the 9th will return Tahrir Square to the demonstrators and send notice to Nouri al-Maliki and his Cabinet that they need to resign. The 9th is being called "The Dawn of the Liberators" and the protests will kick off at 11:00 a.m. The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "We live for an idea, and ideas are Bullet Proof!" Revolution of Iraq's major iraqi revolution adds that they will not rest "until we achieve complete freedom and expell the occupier, change the Constitution and establish fair elections to form a national government" that represents Iraqis. In related news, Al Rafidayn notes that the Sadr bloc is planning to issue an evaluation of Nouri al-Maliki. Per Moqtada al-Sadr, the bloc gave Nouri six months to show improvement in basic services, addressing corruption and other issues raised by the protesters. Last time, Moqtada sided with Nouri in an attempt to bury and derail the protests. His supporters may or may not allow that to be an option this time. Al Mada reports that yesterday Iraqi President Jalal Talabani gave a speech to Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet, a speech in which he declared that Iraq was 'in bloom.' Other pearls Jalal tossed out included, "We need more facts, not just negatives."

Yesterday's snapshot noted a Ramadi suicide bomber took his own life and that of three police officers with five more left injured. Today Michael S. Schmidt and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report the death toll reached 7 (including five police officers) with four more and one civilian left injured. The reporters add, "The head of the police in Anbar Province, Maj. Gen. Hadi Rizaich, said that security officials had some warning that there was going to be a car bomb attack in Ramadi on Wednesday night, but had been unable to find the car."

Today saw three suicide bombings. Reuters notes a Basra suicide car bomber took his own life and left 4 other people dead with another thirty-four injured while in Falluja a suicide car bomber took his own life and the lives of 4 police officers with another five left injured and in Garma a suicide bomber and a suicide car bomber paired up, one after the other, taking their own lives and the lives of 3 police officers with five more left injured. Reuters also notes that a Falluja roadside bombing left three Iraqi soldiers injured, a Baghdad car bombing claimed 1 life and left fourteen more injured, a Baghdad sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people injured, a Baghdad roadside bombing left five people injured, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and dropping back to last night, a Kirkuk rocket attack left "an employee of the state-run oil products company" injured..Aswat al-Iraq notes a bombing targeting 7th Army Commander Maj Gen Ismail al-Duleimy who escaped unharmed but whose driver was killed and his two bodyguards injured.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Princess gets some bad news

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O LOOKS A LITTLE PEAKED THESE DAYS AND FOR GOOD REASON, HE'S NOT GETTING THE HIGH MAINTENANCE WORSHIP HE CRAVES.

FOR EXAMPLE, IN A RECENT POLL 50% OF RESPONDENTS SAID THE COUNTRY WOULD BE BETTER OFF TODAY IF HILLARY CLINTON HAD BEEN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE. EVEN THE MOST DEVOTED FREAKS IN THE CULT OF ST. BARACK NOW PIN THEIR 2012 HOPES ON REPUBLICANS NOMINATING A CANDIDATE SO LOUSY NO ONE WOULD VOTE FOR THEM. AND THOSE WITH CLEAR EYES NOTICE INCREASINGLY HOW SIMILAR BARRY O IS TO BULLY BOY BUSH.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BARRY O JUTTED OUT HIS BOTTOM LIP AND WHIMPERED, "B-B-B-BUT I'M STILL AMERICA'S PRINCESS, RIGHT?"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Judson Berger (Fox News) reports today that if the US military stays in Iraq beyond December 2011, it "could costs billions annually and complicate efforts to reduce the nation's untamed deficit" in the US. Berger notes that "an arrangement with Iraq could cost between $5 billion and $10 billion a year, according to one budget analyst. Todd Harrison, a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said his 'rough estimate' is based on the assumption that as many as 10,000 trainers remain in the country. If the assumption holds true, U.S. budget writers could be looking at another $100 billion in Iraq war costs over the next decade." Robert Naiman (Huffington Post) also notes that ending the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars is a way to lower the spending, "A plausible and reasonable option would be to curtail future spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, consistent with keeping existing agreements and commitments to withdraw our troops, rather than replacing these agreements and commitments with agreements to establish permanent military garrisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under plausible and moderate assumptions, this would save at least $200 billion over ten years, 1/6 of the Super Committee's debt reduction goal." In addition, Naiman explains:

In Iraq, although the president has promised and under the U.S.-Iraq status of forces agreement all U.S. troops are supposed to come home by December 31, the Pentagon is currently negotiating to establish a permanent military garrison of 10,000 troops. According to the Congressional Research Service, the current cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is $802,000 per soldier per year. So, using the CRS number, the cost of keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq from 2012 until 2021 would be about $80 billion.

Last Friday, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said US troops on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011 was a done deal. As explained in Monday's snapshot and at Third in "Editorial: US will be in Iraq beyond 2011, Panetta and Iraqi government explain," Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson, Ali al-Dabbagh, -- while denying it -- said the same thing too. Commentary magazine was once a leading light of the left. That was long, long ago. By the mid-seventies, it had become the neocon bible that it remains today. Abe Greenwald writes of "Obama's Iraq?" for the magazine noting:

In March 2010, when parliamentary gridlock effectively froze Iraqi politics, Washington barely lifted a finger to ensure progress and guide the country toward a favorable outcome. All those Democrats on Capitol Hill who were once triumphantly obsessed with Iraq's inability to meet political "benchmarks" had nothing to say as the Iraqi stalemate sent the country into a debilitating political reversal. What emerged from nearly a year of cynical horse-trading were an authoritarian Maliki and a markedly increased leadership role for extremist Shiites. Moreover, the ill-conceived governing coalitions could barely agree enough to enforce parking laws. All the while, Washington refused to exercise any leverage through conditionality of aid and support. Such absenteeism is the defining characteristic of Obama's "responsible exit." Among Iraqis, distrust, stagnation, and tribalism began to reappear. The result has been increasingly, and predictably, deadly.

As things stand, the U.S. is supposed to remove all American forces from Iraq at the end of this year. This will not only open the door to increased chaos, but deprive us of critical leverage in a still-salvageable Muslim democracy next door to Iran. There are negotiations afoot to keep a reduced number of American troops in Iraq after the hard drawdown date. But as with virtually every Obama maneuver pertaining to foreign policy, holding out hope of a meaningful step in the direction of American strength seems foolish. If an ineffectual compromise leaves behind a small number of hamstrung American advisors, things will likely continue to deteriorate. Headlines about a failing Iraq will be inescapable.

It's not just that the above criticism could have been predicted, it's that we did predict here. We went over this over and over in the snapshots -- especially when the idiot Chris Hill had his US Ambassador to Iraq confirmation hearing and a Republican Senator on the Committee who's a friend told me why they were lodging the objectings they (Republicans) did to Chris Hill. They were laying the groundwork for this type of criticism. That's a non neocon Republican and the main thrust of their criticism is that the war was "won" (I don't believe that) and that Barack screwed it up. And that's why they lodged the objections to Chris Hill but were happy to see him confirmed. Chris Hill was a fool. He couldn't even grasp -- after days of tuturing prior to appearing before the Committee -- the issues involved in Kirkuk. He declared it just an old fashioned land dispute. It's a great deal more complicated than that and, in fact, the RAND corporation's study, "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops," argues 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" and that the disagreement could be over the unresolved status of Kirkuk.

As we observed May 6, 2010:

Iraq was not a success when Hill (finally) got to Baghdad. But he's leaving it worse than it was when he got there and the decay happened on his watch because he didn't know what he was doing. When the fool occasionally asked basic questions about protocol, he'd blow off the advice he was given. There's no way to spin it for Barack. Chris Hill is a disaster.
And go into the archives and you'll see that we warned in real time that the Republicans were going on the record in their objection to Hill but they wanted the Dems to push it (which the Dems did) because Hill was going to be the fall guy for the administration. The Republicans never intended to blame General Ray Odierno for a worsening Iraq. It wouldn't go over with their base. But a diplomat? Someone they could dub an "egg head"? Especially someone who looked the part?
I hear alternate theories from friends in the administration but one that seems very popular is that Barack had to continue the Iraq War ('somewhat') because if he just pulled the troops out (as many Americans believed he promised when running for president) and it went to hell, he would be blamed.

But, as we always argued, if he started an immediate withdrawal upon being sworn in (which is what he promised), then it wouldn't be his war. It would be Bully Boy Bush's illegal war that was unfinished business left over for Barack to just wrap up.

When you've continued it as long as he has (in five months, it'll be three years), you own it. And now he does. If he'd done the smart thing, he would have gotten US troops out and, if criticized about the state of Iraq in 2012, he could have said, "That war was wrong. US forces did all they could do and they should have been brought home by the previous" occupant of the White House (I don't apply the p-word to Bully Boy Bush due to his being 'elected' by five Supreme Court Justices) "but he wouldn't do it so, as president, I had to." And with over 60% of Americans against the war at that point, that would have been fine for the 2012 elections. The illegal war would have been all on Bush.

But Barack and his inner War Circle, though fawned over by an inbred press, aren't all that smart. And despite this option being presented to them by other members in the administration, they wouldn't go for it.

So now Barack owns the war. And it's failure is on him as well. (It will not turn around, it will not be a success. The WikiLeaks State Dept cables that we noted Scott Horton (Antiwar Radio) and Jason Ditz discussing earlier this month, go to why that is. As we've long pointed out here, Nouri al-Maliki's a thug. It's an opinion shared with several members of the current administration. But when they weren't in an administration (because Bush occupied the White House), the could and often did speak of that publicly. Now they fall silent because the administration doesn't want any truths spoken, not after Samantha Power saw and decreed Nouri as Iraq's best shot (for continued US domination of Iraq although she dressed it up with a 'democracy' bow).

Nouri's a thug. The US installed a Little Saddam. And the thing about Little Saddam's is that they're a lot like Chia Pets, just add water and they grow and grow. If you can impose democracy on another country (I don't believe you can), you can't do it under a thug. Thirty or so years from now, the US government will probably be sending young men and women to die in Iraq in order to 'liberate' the country from the "dictator" Nouri.

A former US senator took the time to explain it to Barack even after everyone grasped that Samantha Power would be calling all the war shots and likened the Iraq War to both hot potato and musical chairs, trying to convey to Barack that you do not want to get stuck holding the hot potato, you don't want the music to stop and there be no chair for you. But instead of getting rid of the Iraq War by doing an immediate withdrawal and refusing to take part in Bush's illegal war, Barack made it his own. And now it's failure will be as much on him as it is on Bush. The same with it's illegal nature and everything else.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

More and more Americans disapprove

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O MAY BE ON VACATION BUT DISAPPOINTMENT TAKES NO VACATION THEREBY EXPLAINING THE CONTINUED DISENCHANTMENT WITH AMERICA'S PRINCESS BARRY O. YESTERDAY HE REACHED HIS ALL TIME LOW, 38% APPROVAL RATING AND 54% DISAPPROVAL IN GALLUP'S DAILY TRACKING. RASMUSSEN ALSO FINDS BAD NEWS FOR PRINCESS BARRY, 56% OF LIKELY VOTERS DISAPPROVE OF HIS 'JOB' PERFORMANCE.

MEANWHILE POLITICO'S ALEXANDER BURNS AND CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN ATTEMPT CAREERS AS COMEDY WRITERS PROCLAIMING PRINCESS BARRY "THE RELUCTANT WAR PRESIDENT." UH, HOW MANY WARS DO YOU HAVE TO OVERSEE TO BE 'RELUCTANT'? THERE'S THE IRAQ WAR, THE AFGHANISTAN WAR, THE LIBYAN WAR, THE PAKISTAN DRONE WAR . . .

WHILE PRINCESS MAY BE A RELUCTANT PRESIDENT, WHEN IT COMES TO WAR, BARRY NOT ONLY PUTS OUT, HE SPREADS.

ALEXANDER, CARRIE, PUT THOSE DREAMS OF SCRIPTING SMALL WONDER: THE MOVIE TO REST AND RETURN TO JOURNALISM.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

We'll start by noting this from the Feminist Majority Foundation:

WASHINGTON, DC -- August 26 is Women's Equality Day, the anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote. In recognition of this, and of the anniversary of the August, 1963 civil rights March on Washington, strengthening the right to vote for women of color, a coalition of women's organizations, representing millions of American women, will unveil HERvotes and release a list of top ten historic laws that impact women's lives, but are now most in danger of being weakened, cut, or eliminated by extremist policies at the local, state and federal levels, at a nation audio news conference on Wedensday, August 24.

AUDIO NEWS CONFERENCE

WHO:

Eleanor Smeal President, Feminist Majority

Joan Entmacher Vice-President for Family Economic Security, National Women's Law Center

Dr. Avis Jones-DeWeever Executive Director, National Council of Negro Women

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner Executive Director, MomsRising

WHEN: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)

HOW: Via toll-free number 800-289-0517 pass code: HERvotes

Women's leaders from participating organizations will be available for Q&A. See below list of participating organizations and their leaders.

HERvotes, Women's Groups Leadership

National Coaltion of 100 Black Women

Dee Dee Strum, President, president@nc100bw.org

American Association of University Women

Linda Hallman, President, executive@aauw.org

Black Women's Roundtable, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation

Melanie Campbell, Executive Director, melaniec@ncbcp.org

Dolores Huerta Foundation

Dolores Huerta, President

Feminist Majority Foundation/ Ms. Magazine community

Eleanor Smeal, President esmeal@feminist.org

MomsRising

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director,

Kristin@momsrising.org

Nationale Congress of Black Women

Dr. Faye Williams, Chair, dr.efayew@gmail.com

National Council of Women's Organization

Susan Scanlan, Chair, scanlan@wrei.org

National Council of Jewish Women

Sammie Mosehnberg, Director of Washington Operations, sammie@ncjw.org

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, Incoming Executive Director

National Organization for Women

Terry O'Neill, President, president@now.org

National Women's Health Network

Cindy Pearson, Executive Director, cpearson@nwhn.org

National Women's Law Center

Marcia Greenberger, Co-President, mgreenbergen@nwlc.org

Raising Women's Voices

Cindy Pearson, Co-Founder

Women's Information Network

Andrea Gleaves, Political Director, andrea.gleaves@gmail.com

Women's Research and Educational Institute (WREI)

Susan Scanlan, Executive Director

No, that has nothing to do with Iraq. At the end of the snapshot, we'll spend several paragraphs noting the passing of a true artist and a wonderful friend. But onto Iraq . . .

Today Mother Jones used an Iraq photo taken by Spc Crystal Hudson for their "We're Still at War: Photo of the Day." The Capital-Journal reports, "A departure ceremony will take place Wednesday for members of the 1st Battalion, 108th Aviation Regiment, Kansas National Guard, as they deploy for duty with Operation New Dawn in Iraq." That send-off will be tomorrow, 1:00 pm, at the Ramad Convention Center in Topeka. And the report notes that the Guard members are expected to spend a year in Iraq. No, the administration never really believed there would be a December 31st withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq. Yesterday on The Young Turks, Cenk Uygur addressed the news that the US military would be remaining in Iraq beyond the end of this year.

Cenk Uygur: So first in Iraq, [US Secretary of Defense Leon] Panetta says that we might have made "progress" and that his view is that the Iraqi government finally has said yes to us staying longer in Iraq. Now remember, President Bush signed the Status Of Forces Agreement -- SOFA for short -- saying that we will be leaving by the end of 2011. Now President Obama has said on multiple occassions, over and over again, that he was going to withdraw everybody and that he was going to stick to that agreement and, in fact, he constantly brags about, "Oh, we're getting out of Iraq and look at me I get you out of wars just like I promised on the campaign." Well maybe not. It looks like we're going to have -- No, no, no, the administration assures us, we won't have "combat troops" troops there because that is what President Obama has promised. That we might leave over 10,000 -- and that's a conservative number -- "noncombant troops." Will they have guns? Oh, yeah, they'll have guns, but they will be "trainers." So are we staying in Iraq a lot longer? You betcha.

Good for The Young Turks. Very few people have even covered in what is supposedly "left media." (I'm referring to alternative media, not corporate media, nor am I making a blanket statement that the media -- all the media -- is left.) Katrina vanden Heuvel used to love to grand stand on the Iraq War. Last Friday, Leon Panetta tells the country that troops staying in Iraq beyond December is a done-deal and Katrina 'weighs in' with a column on . . . Rick Perry. Priorities. Not even Robert Dreyfuss who supposedly Iraq for The Nation magazine has managed to write about it. At The Progressive? Not a word, not a peep. It's the same at In These Times. ZNet has nothing to say, of course, but, really, hasn't that been Michael Albert's whole sad life. (Yes, yes, it has.) So good for The Young Turks. They've told their audience the truth. Others on the left apparently haven't figured out how to yet spin this as a really good thing and something people should be grateful to Barack for doing.

You used to be so proud

Now you're head's a little lower

And you walk a little slower

And you don't talk so loud

--"Didn't You Know You'd Have To Cry Sometime," written by Nick Ashford and Valerie Simpson, recorded by everyone from Gladys Knight and the Pips to Diana Ross

Be grateful for Adam Green. Why? Adam Green is collecting Barack Obama's Tweets at 140 Elect and notes the Iraq Tweets from 2007 including:

BarackObama Barack Obama

Thinking we're only one signature away from ending the war in Iraq. Learn more at http://www.barackobama.com

Apr 29, 2007 3:04pm

ReplyRetweetFavorite

46195712

BarackObama Barack Obama

Wondering why, four years after President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished," we are still at war?

May 01, 2007 2:12pm

Retweet

Favorite

77263482

BarackObama Barack Obama

In DC voting No… "We should not give the President a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

May 24, 2007 9:05pm

Retweet

Favorite

Green points out that Barack was once against the Iraq War. In fairness to Barack, he didn't actually Tweet until after he was president. So we should say someone who Tweeted for him talked big about ending the Iraq War once upon a time.

Northern Iraq continues to be bombed by Turkish warplanes. Sebnem Arsu (New York Times) reports, "The Turkish military killed at least 100 Kurdish separatists and injured more than 80 during air strikes into northern Iraq during the past week, an army statement said on Tuesday. It added that the strikes would continue." Apparently 'modesty' prevented the Turkish military from boasting of the family of eight they killed on Friday. Why Arsu didn't note it is a question for the New York Times. Meanwhile Ivan Watson (CNN) notes, "On Sunday night, a PKK spokesman said no rebels had been killed." BBC News adds, "The PKK has confirmed three deaths, while local reports say a family of seven were killed by the bombing." Al Rafidayn reports that the KRG's Parliament has criticized the United States for not protecting the Kurdistan region from attacks by Turkey and Iran. The Speaker of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Kamal Kirkuki, held a press conference where he stated, "The Americans have thus far unfortunately refused to carry out their duty to maintain the safety of the borders and the skies of Iraq properly."

Nor will the US be defending northern Iraq anytime soon. At yesterday's US State Dept press briefing (link has text and video) the final question for spokesperson Victoria Nuland was about Turkey's continued bombing of northern Iraq and Nuland replied, "I don't think I have anything new on this from what we said last week, which was that we understand these air strikes were conducted, we recognize Turkey's right of self-defense, we urge Turkey and Iraq to maintain close contact on these issues and to cooperate." Wang Guanqum (Xinhua) reports the Turkish military claims they have "hit 13 targets in Metina, Zap, Avashin - Bashyan and Kharkurk on Aug. 20, four targets in Qandil, Gara, Zap and Metina on Aug. 21, and seven targets in Zap, Kharkurk, Avashim - Bashyan and Qandil on Aug. 22." And that the Turkish military claims their "jets hit 132 targets while artillery untis shelled 349 targets. Seventy-three hiding places, six shelters, 18 caves, eight depots, 14 buildings, one arsenal, nine anti-aircraft positions and three control points were destroyed." And that the Turkish military claims that "90 to 100 terrrorists were rendered ineffective [killed]. More than 80 terrorists were wounded." And, most importantl, this is, according to the Turkish military, a response to an August 17th PKK attack which left nine Turkish forces dead (one was a security guard) and fifteen more injured."

I guess if might made right, the country of Turkey would already be in the European Union. It doesn't and the country continues to struggle that its human rights policies are in keeping with those of the modern world. Constanze Letsch (Guardian) reports that the largest opposition party in Turkey, the Republican People's Party (CHP) is criticizing the government's response. Sezgin Tanrikulu, the party's deputy leader, is quoted stating, "For years, the Turkish government has battled the PKK with air strikes and ground operations. If military force would be the solution, we would not have a problem today. With no clear stance regarding democracy, human rights and freedom of speech, all the AKP currently does is incite discrimination and violence among the population.

The PKK is one of many Kurdish groups which supports and fights for a Kurdish homeland. Aaron Hess (International Socialist Review) described them in 2008, "The PKK emerged in 1984 as a major force in response to Turkey's oppression of its Kurdish population. Since the late 1970s, Turkey has waged a relentless war of attrition that has killed tens of thousands of Kurds and driven millions from their homes. The Kurds are the world's largest stateless population -- whose main population concentration straddles Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria -- and have been the victims of imperialist wars and manipulation since the colonial period. While Turkey has granted limited rights to the Kurds in recent years in order to accommodate the European Union, which it seeks to join, even these are now at risk." The Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq has been a concern to Turkey because they fear that if it ever moves from semi-autonomous to fully independent -- such as if Iraq was to break up into three regions -- then that would encourage the Kurdish population in Turkey. For that reason, Turkey is overly interested in all things Iraq. So much so that they signed an agreement with the US government in 2007 to share intelligence which the Turkish military has been using when launching bomb raids. However, this has not prevented the loss of civilian life in northern Iraq. Aaron Hess noted, "The Turkish establishment sees growing Kurdish power in Iraq as one step down the road to a mass separatist movement of Kurds within Turkey itself, fighting to unify a greater Kurdistan. In late October 2007, Turkey's daily newspaper Hurriyet accused the prime minister of the KRG, Massoud Barzani, of turning the 'Kurdish dream' into a 'Turkish nightmare'."

Today the Kurdistan Regional Government's President Masoud Barzani released the following:

Dear People of Kurdistan,

As you know, the situation in the Kurdistan Region's border areas has deteriorated, causing our people to face daily Iranian and Turkish bombardment and aerial attacks.

These attacks have inflicted great suffering on our people in the border areas, leaving some dead and injured. They have intensified in recent days to the point that we can no longer remain silent and watch our innocent, vulnerable civilians pay the price of this fight.

The presence of armed PJAK and PKK members in the mountainous border areas provides an excuse for our two neighbouring countries to commit these attacks. The continuation of their actions, the use of violence, and the use of Kurdistan Region border areas as bases will lead to the spread of violence to the Kurdistan Region and this will not in any way help the legitimate Kurdish question. It is unfortunate that no consideration is given to the interests and welfare of the people of the Kurdistan Region.
It has been our policy all along, and we reiterate again, that the Kurdistan Region aspires to develop friendly and good neighbourly relations with all sides, and it has never been involved in the internal problems of these two countries. We would never interfere in the internal affairs of any country. However, we can not remain silent when our innocent citizens are being killed.
As the Kurdistan Region, we deplore the shedding of innocent blood. We believe that dialogue and mutual understanding are keys to resolving all problems. In the past, we never spared any effort to resolve these issues through dialogue and always advocated for the pursuit of peaceful means by all sides. Unfortunately, the situation has once again become complicated.
In some point in our history, we resorted to armed struggle to defend our land, to obtain our rights, and to protect the dignity of our people. With our resolve and with the backing of our people, we managed to preserve our existence and identity. But today is different. In today's world, the language of dialogue is far more effective than fighting and military action. We have spared no efforts to spread this message.
Our goal has always been the provision of prosperity for our people and maintaining the stability of our Region. We would never do anything to jeopardize the prosperity and stability of our Region, whatever the circumstances. Therefore, we request that the interests of the people of the Kurdistan Region be observed. The achievements made by our people are the result of hard work and great sacrifices, and it is incumbent on every Kurd to be proud of these achievements and to protect them.
It must be clear to the people of the Kurdistan Region that military action along the border areas gives an excuse to both countries to openly conduct their own military actions in the Kurdistan Region. The main victims of these bombardments and military actions are the people of the Kurdistan Region. I am certain that fighting and violence will not lead to any resolution. At the end of the day, peaceful means must be pursued. The sooner this fighting ends the better; however, if the opposing factions have chosen and insist on the option of fighting, we ask all sides to do their fighting elsewhere and spare the Kurdistan Region.
We are prepared for any cooperation to return the situation to normalcy through dialogue and peaceful means. At the same time, we call on the Iraqi federal government to use its diplomatic channels with our two neighbouring countries to bring these attacks to an end and protect the sovereignty of Iraq.
In light of this delicate situation, I ask the Iraqi Kurdistan Parliament to comprehensively study this situation and then formulate a policy that reflects the unanimous view of the Kurdistan Region.

Masoud Barzani
President of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Aswat al-Iraq reports, "Parliamentary Foreign Relations Commission MP warned of escalation of the crises with Iran and Turkey due to their continued military operations against the Kurdish border villages, calling the Iraqi government to adopt 'a firm stand' through opening a dialogue with the two countries."

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Barry O on another spending spree

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS MADE A LITTLE DECLARATION IN THE MIDST OF AMERICA'S GREAT RECESSION.

AS MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS REMAIN UNEMPLOYED, AMERICA'S PRINCESS BARACK HAS DECLARED THAT HE WILL BE PROVIDING THE COUNTRY OF LIBYA WITH FINANCIAL AID.

"HE" OF COURSE MEANS "WE" THE TAX PAYERS.

CAN SOMEONE TELL THAT CRAZY BITCH TO STOP PROMISING MONEY THAT NEEDS TO BE SPENT ON REBUILDING THE UNITED STATES?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The things that I have done that I regret

The things I seen, I won't forget

For this life and so many more

And I'm trying to find my way home

Child inside me is long dead and gone

Somewhere between lost and alone

Trying to find my way home

-- "Trying To Find My Way Home," written by Jason Moon, from Moon's latest album Trying To Find My Way Home

Over the weekend, Robert Burns (Associated Press) noted the 2003 death in Iraq of 20-year-old Spc Justin W.Hebert and how almost "one-third of U.S. troops killed in Iraq were age 18 to 21. Well over half were in the lowest enlisted ranks." DoD currently lists the number of US military personnel killed in the Iraq War at [PDF format warning] 4478. That would mean that over 2,200 of the deaths were from the lowest enlisted ranks and about 1490 were 21-years-old or younger.

And those numbers have not stopped growing because the Iraq War is not over.

That's what Leon Panetta's remarks Friday were about. His remarks? Oh, sorry. Readers of the allegedly left publications The Progressive and The Nation don't know about that because those trashy magazines walked away from the war when Bush left office. It was all about hating Bush, not about ending wars. Both publications did have time for valentines to Russ Feingold (John Nichols writes one, Matthew Rothschild writes the other) for Russ' cowardly refusal to run (I know Russ and it was a coward's decision, no matter how much his fan club tries to dress it up). (And for those who gag at the immature ravings of Rothschild and Nichols, Hugh at Corrente provides a more clear eyed appraisal.) From Friday's snapshot:

Kevin Baron (Stars & Stripes) notes that the Iraqi response is that they have not agreed to trainers but US Secretary of Defense "Leon Panetta said Friday that Iraq has already said yet to extending noncombat U.S. forces there beyond 2011, and that the Pentagon is negotiating that presence [. . . that] there is unanimous consent among key Iraqi leaders to address U.S. demands. Those demands include that Iraqis begin negotiating internally what type of U.S. training force they would like, begin a process to select a defense minister, craft a new Status of Forces Agreement and increase operations against Iranian-backed militants." Reid J. Epstein (POLITICO) refers to a transcript and quotes Panetta stating, "My view is that they finally did say yes, which is that as a result of a meeting that Talabani had last week, that all of the, it was unanimous consent among the key leaders of the country to go ahead and request that we negotiate on some kind of training, what a training presence would look like, they did at least put in place a process to try and get a Minister of Defence decided and we think they're making some progress on that front."

To her credit, Amy Goodman did include the news in headlines today. She didn't mention Iraqi official reaction. And possibly that's because Iraqi reaction really wasn't what the English-language press was saying it was Friday. As we noted Saturday, Al Mada reports on Panetta's remarks and on Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh denying an agreement has already been made. But while denying it, Ali al-Dabbagh also stated that when "the polical blocs met, they approved the need to train security forces and the Iraqi military" which would be Panetta's point that it was now a done deal. So despite his denial, Ali al-Dabbagh's actual remarks back up what Panetta said. Dar Addustour also offers Ali al-Dabbagh's quote and, in addition, they report that the only perplexing issue in the negotiations is how many US troops remain. As we noted in Third's "Editorial: US will be in Iraq beyond 2011, Panetta and Iraqi government explain," Ali al-Dabbagh may claim he's refuting Panetta, but his remarks are backing up everything Panetta said Friday. Both agree that a deal's been agreed to in order to extend the US presence in Iraq beyond 2011 and both agree that the number of US service members that will remain in Iraq has yet to be determined.

Before Iraq issued their 'denial' on Friday (which appears to have been willfully misinterpreted by the press) and before the White House asked the press to clamp down on the story, Panetta's remarks were getting coverage and that's because they are news.

But what you're seeing, if you look closely, is that The Nation, The Progressive, In These Times, et al are nothing but protest pens. They're not about action, they're not about activism, they're not about news and they are not about information. But they will encourage you to rage away . . . within the white lines they've drawn, within the area they have designated for protest. And then they will feed you scary tells of the other and convince you that Republicans are the enemies and bring the gospel of trust and obey the Democratic Party.

i walked into your dream

and now i've forgotten

how to dream my own dream

you are the CLEVER one aren't you

brides in veils for you

we told you all of our secrets

all but one

so don't you even try

the phone has been disconnected

dripping with blood and with time

and with your advice

poison me against the moon

-- "Mother," written by Tori Amos, first appears on her Little Earthquakes

Enter the world of the faux left, little Veal Cutlet, where they will educate you on hating Republicans and insist that you have no where else to go but the Democratic Party so learn to fume in vain and never do anything. Learn to hate the other and learn to vote straight ticket. Learn or, honestly, be conditioned. Give up independent thought and grasp that wars are only bad when Republicans occupy the White House. The same wars -- be they the Iraq War or the Afghanistan War or what have you -- become unworthy of dicussion -- let alone protest -- when an anointed Democrat, a blessed Dem, is sworn in as president. That's the magical reactionary way of the faux left.

And by refusing to ever stand for principals or beliefs, they not only encourage illegal wars, they encourage the trashing of the safety net and so much more. They are the reason for the current state of the United States. (Read Chris Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class.)

Aaron (Love to Blame) notes Panetta's remarks and includes the following figures:

46 soldiers have died since September 1, 2010, when Rachel Maddow and the corporate media declared Iraq War's end.
246 soldiers have died since Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama's presidential inauguration.
66 people died in bloodiest day in Iraq since the war's "end."
32 soldiers commit suicide in July, an all-time high.
Countless of Iraqis have died in the continuing violence there.

Alexander Higgins notes the extension needs to be added to Barack Obama's "long list of lies and broken campaign promises" and highlights Madison Ruppert (Activist Post) who states," "For those not aware, in the politically correct military parlance parroted by the media, 'training forces' is a nice way of saying Special Forces troops who instruct and train the Iraq military to bring about the brutal death and destruction they specialize in." Press TV speaks (link has text and video) with Michael Maloof (who used to be with the Pentagon's Technology Security Operations).

Press TV: You've touched upon this a bit, but I'd like you to expand on this - Obama has never really stood by the reasons the US went to war against Iraq - Why is he so motivated to stay in Iraq now?

Michael Maloof: I think it's because of the changing circumstances; and you're only talking 10,000 troops; it's supposed to be a token amount, or they might agree to the extension of the 40,000 that are there. But it's not going to really matter in terms of what effectiveness they can accomplish. I think the US is also under increasing pressure from the Saudis. It's my understanding that the Saudis have decided to go on their own - they no longer trust the US -- to basically create their own army; a rapid reaction force if you will and they're very much concerned about the plight of the Sunnis in Iraq. And so they're going to put pressure on the US to at least maintain some kind of presence there in order to in effect try to disrupt the forward motion of Iranian influence in what is an Arab world in that region and also because of the concern the Saudis have over the plight of the Sunnis there. Iraq has gone relatively unnoticed in the press in recent months. The war in Afghanistan and the killing of Osama bin Laden had replaced the focus on Iraq. But while the fighting and bloodletting in Iraq may have dissipated in recent months, it never ended.

AKE's John Drake Tweets:

johnfdrake Everyone is looking at #Libya, but at least 90 people were killed and 355 injured in violence in #Iraq last week.

about 13 hours ago

The violence never ends in the ongoing war which is one of the points Mehdi Hasan makes in "Barack Obama's wars without end" (Guardian):

Iraq, meanwhile, has become the forgotten war -- yet an astonishing 47,000 US troops remain stationed there. Earlier this month, Obama told a group of supporters: "If somebody asks about the war [in Iraq] … you have a pretty simple answer, which is all our folks are going to be out of there by the end of the year."
Not quite. US military leaders expect to keep up to 10,000 "folks" in Iraq beyond the 31 December 2011 deadline, agreed by the Bush administration, for a full US withdrawal. Obama's hawkish new defence secretary, Leon Panetta, used his Senate confirmation hearings in June to announce that he had "every confidence" that the Iraqi government would "request" US troops to stay on in the country beyond the end of the year. However the anti-US Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr declared this month that any foreign soldier remaining in Iraq in 2012 would "be treated as an unjust invader and should be opposed with military resistance". So we can expect further bloodshed in that benighted nation: America's Mesopotamian misadventure is far from over.

"Take a letter"
"THIS JUST IN! MEMO TOTHE PRESS!"

Cedric's Big Mix