Damed if he doesn't try to put an 'I' in team!

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

TO NO ONE'S SURPRISE, WHEN CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O JOINED WITH THREE MEN IN A CAMPAIGN STOP TO SPELL THE WORD "OHIO," BARRY O WENT WITH THE "I."  IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT BARRY.

HE LOOKS RIDICULOUS IN THE PHOTO -- AS IF HE JUST WANDERED OFF FROM A FIRE ISLAND CLAM BAKE. THAT'S A FEELING THAT GETS UNDERSCORED EVEN MORE AS BARRY O RUSHES TO THE MEDIA TO TALK ABOUT "GOOD FRIEND" GEORGE CLOONEY.  AFTER AWHILE, YOU HAVE TO WONDER EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON BETWEEN THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF AND THE MAN WHOSE BAD PLASTIC SURGERY MAKES HIM LESS AND LESS RECOGNIZABLE.

NO WONDER HIS CAMPAIGN HAS LARGELY DECIDED TO WRITE OFF MALE VOTERS.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 

John Luciew (Patriot-News) reports on a send-off ceremony at Fort Indiantwon Gap for approximately 100 Pennsylvania National Guard troops who are headed to Afghanistan, "The National Anthem played through stereo speakers that made the song sound muffled, not the big, booming ode to a nation that we've come to know.  Even the commanders who rose to give the speeches seemed subdued.  Perhaps, it's from the repetition. A spokesman said the Pennsylvania National Guard is nearing its 30,000th service members deployments since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And there are more to come.  The next year will see another 2,000 make their way overseas, most likely to Afghanistan, the destination for this deployment, and Kuwait, Iraq's next-door neighbor."  Dropping back to the June 19th snapshot:

 

Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council." On page v., Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, notes, "Home to more than half of the world's oil reserves and over a third of its natural gas, the stability of the Persian Gulf is critical to the global economy."  Chair John Kerry has stated of the report, "The Gulf Region is strategically important to the United States economically, politically, and for security reasons.  This is a period of historic, but turbulent change in the Middle East. We need to be clear-eyed about what these interests are and how best to promote them.  This report provides a thoughtful set of recommendations designed to do exactly that."

 [. . .]

Page nine of the report:

 

 

A residual American military presence in the Gulf and increased burden-sharing with GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] states are fundamental components of such a framework. However, the United States must also carefully shape its military footprint to protect the free-flow of critical natural resources and promote regional stability while not creating a popular backlash.

 

 

Page 12:

 

 

Kuwait is especially keen to maintain a significant U.S. military presence. In fact, the Kuwaiti public perception of the United States is more positive than any other Gulf country, dating back to the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait paid over $16 billion to compensate coalition efforts for costs incurred during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and $350 million for Operation Southern Watch. In 2004, the Bush Administration designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally.

* U.S. Military Presence: A U.S.-Kuwaiti defense agreement signed in 1991 and extended in 2001 provides a framework that guards the legal rights of American troops and promotes military cooperation. When U.S. troops departed Iraq at the end of 2011, Kuwait welcomed a more enduring American footprint. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, but the number is likely to decrease to 13,500. Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Field, and Camp Buehring offer the United States major staging hubs, training rages, and logistical support for regional operations. U.S. forces also operate Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile defense.

 

 

Yes, despite Barack Obama's claims otherwise, all US troops did not come home.  Nor are they coming home anytime soon.  But the shell game has always been a popular short-con because it's so easy to move things around and distract people.

 

Adam Schreck (AP) reports the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey met with officials today in Baghdad.   Al Manar quotes Dempsey stating, "We still retain significant investment and significant influence.  But now it's on the basis of a partnership and not on the basis of ownership."   The quote comes from an interview he gave to AFP's Dan De Luce.  Now its a partnership and not ownership?  When did the US own Iraq?  I know what Dempsey's trying to say.  I also know what he said.  And the plane had barely touched down, Alsumaria reports, before State of Law MP Mohammed Chihod was stating that the Iraqi forces are able to thwart plots against Iraq and that they do not need the US or any other country.  State of Law is Nouri's political slate.  And they're not smart.  They're sort of the rejects of Iraq.  All the better Shi'ites went to other groups.  This could have been a day when State of Law yet again looked ridiculous on the world stage but then Dempsey had to start using "ownership" to describe the US relationship with Iraq? 

 

 

 

The Defense Dept notes that Dempsey was scheduled to meet with US Lt Gen Robert Caslen (chief of the Office of Security Cooperation Iraq) and Nouri al-Maliki.  Alsumaria reports that he made nice with Nouri in a meeting in which Nouri demanded that the pace of supplying arms to Iraqi forces -- to protect, land, water and air -- must be accelerated.  There's an agreement, Nouri stated, the Strategic Framework Agreement, and they are monitoring the US' ability to complete what was agreed upon.  AFP's De Luce notes, "The four-star general said he would not press the Iraqi government on reports that it may be allowing Iran to ferry supplies to the Syrian regime through Iraqi territory or helping Tehran circumvent financial sanctions."

 

Sanctions?  The front page of Sunday's New York Times featured James Risen and Duraid Adnan's "U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions" about the White House's knowledge that Iraq is helping Iran "skirt economic sanctions."  And, the two reported, Barack was "not eager for a public showdown with Nouri."  So instead of being a leader and addressing it, Barack will live in denial?  He wanted the job, why's it so damn hard for him to do the work required?  If he can't go toe-to-toe with a flunky the US-installed under Bush and that he (Barack) made sure got a second term inspite of the vote count and the Constitution, what kind of leader is Barack? The US government sought the sanctions against Iran.  The US president knows they're being ignored and he's too chicken to confront Nouri?

 

Courage is not sending the US military into other countries or over -- Libya and Syria -- them.  Courage is being able to stand up and Barack doesn't have the courage to stand up to Nouri.

 

 

And what kind of idiots are on Team Romney that they can't call out Barack on this?  This is exactly a test of are-you-ready-for-the-office-or-not and, by the way he's dawdled and ignored it, Barack's still not ready to be president even after four years on the job.

 

 

Apparently the right-wing was just flapping their gums and pretending to be offended when Barack was scraping and bowing to foreign leaders.  I gave them the benefit of the doubt on that because they were right: the US President bows down before no one.  I believe that very firmly.  Apparently the right-wing was just looking for something to complain about that day because, otherwise, they'd be all over Barack for refusing to address this issue. 

 

Not only is he not laying down the law with Nouri, he's about to turn F-16s over to Nouri.  When the White House knows or 'knows' (believes at the very least) that Iraq is helping Iran get around economic sanctions?  AFP reports US officials are stating that the first of 36 F-16s will be delivered to Iraq in September 2014.

 

Truth telling in the press?  Not very often but today AKnews offers some truth:

 

The US government has not demanded the oil companies not to invest in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, said Kurdistan Natural Resourced Minister.

Ashti Hawrami made the remarks in response to some media reports which quoted the US State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland saying Washington has warned the oil companies not to sign any oil deals with Kurdistan without Baghdad's approval or Baghdad may take legal action against them.

 

He is correct.  Good for AKnews for reporting on his statements.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "The land of widows, orphans and refugees" "Save the drama" "Chris Floyd is a F**KING Ass" "Is the CDC trying to be offensive?" "2 men, 2 women" "behind bars" "The dumb man and his dumb continuing war" "Phyllis Diller" "NBC prepares to mock September 11th" "Book talk" "The sad Mayer (not John)" "Hurling" "THIS JUST IN! JUAN COLE: RAPE ADVOCATE!" "Juan Cole endorses rape"