BULLY BOY
PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID
TABLE
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WANTS AIR FORCE ONE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. WITHOUT IT, HOW WILL HE AND SHE-HULK BE ABLE TO TRAVEL?
BUT AFRAID THAT HE MIGHT BE KICKED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, BARRY O IS BRINGING OUT HIS A-GAME. OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, HE WILL BE EVERYWHERE INCLUDING THE TONIGHT SHOW, MTV AND PROBABLY PARTYING WITH LINDSAY LOHAN IF HONEY BOO BOO WON'T HAVE HIM.
SAID BARRY O TO THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, "I AM THE CLOSEST THING AMERICA HAS TO ROYALTY! I AM, WHY I AM AND AMERICAN PRINCESS! THEY CAN'T GET RID OF ME!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Defense Video & Image Distribution System has the strangest story
about how Col Matthe Riordan is leaving Iraq and Lt Col Kim Thomas.
And the photo is confusing as well -- it shows people in what appear to
be US army uniforms. But how could that be?
Fact
checking last night's debate between US President Barack Obama and
former Governor Mitt Romney, one outlet after another declared all US
troops were out of Iraq, all troops had left. So, as Joni Mitchell sings, "Help me, I think I'm falling . . ." And the confusion just continues as Simon Rogers (Guardian) posts
a chart from the US Army listing the US Army Deployments in 2012 --
this year. If all US troops left Iraq at the end of 2011, then surely
Iraq did not make the list of "Top 10 Countries" in 2012 for deployment,
right?
Wait, there it is! Number five on the
list of deployments with a little less than 20,000 US troops. How can
that be? How can we have thousands of US troops in Iraq? Didn't they
all just tell us last night and this morning that all US troops left
Iraq at the end of 2011? How many are present? Click on map, on Iraq
(yes, geography can be hard -- especially for the US press) and you get
the number 18,400 ("In 2012 there were 18,400 Army personnel deployed in
Iraq").
So, CNN, you're wrong when you declare all "left Iraq in December 2011."
And, Shashank Bengali (Los Angeles Times), you're wrong when you state: "The last U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in December."
And also on the dunce list, Susan Cornwell and Lucy Shackelford (Reuters) who maintain: "The last U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq last December, ending a war launched in March 2003.
Why
were they and so many others who've been silent for so long finally
talking about Iraq? Because it was a topic that came up last night when
Bob
Schieffer moderated a debate between the Democratic and Republican
party presidential candidates -- President Barack Obama and former
Governor Mitt Romney. Covering the exchange, Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) observed,
"Romney's right -- Obama did try to get a status of forces agreement,
but could not get an agreement with the government of Iraq. So now he
stresses the fact that he has removed all troops from Iraq, while
knocking Romney for supporting what he originally had hoped to
achieve." Also weighing in on Barack's deception is the editorial board of the New Jersey Star-Ledger:
The
claim is true. The problem is that Obama wanted to keep 10,000 troops
on the ground in Iraq as well. He later cut that number to 5,000, and
wasn't able to keep even that contingent in place only because his
attempts to negotiate an agreement with the government of Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki ended in failure. Obama had insisted on a guarantee
that the remaining U.S. troops would be immune from criminal prosecution
in Iraq, a demand that Maliki refused.
So
for Obama to paint Romney as a die-hard combatant in Iraq was beyond
misleading. It was a stunt. And given the emotions that still surround
the troubled U.S. occupation, and the fact that Obama clearly knew he
was being dishonest, he wins the whopper.
Grace Wyler (Business Insider) also points out,
"Romney is actually correct on this point. The status of forces
agreement -- put into place in 2008, before Obama took office -- called
for a full U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. When that
time came, the Obama administration tried to work out an extension of
the agreement with the Iraqi government that would have kept an
unspecified number of U.S. troops (likely between 3,000 and 5,000) in the country to train Iraqi security forces." John Glaser (Antiwar.com) offers that Barack was dishonest due to the fact that the truth "conflicted with his attempts to claime he ended the war in Iraq." Jeremy Hammond (Foreign Policy Journal) observes that, in the Iraq exchange, "Romney was being honest and Obama was, well, lying." From Hammond's analysis:
While Obama is fond of taking credit for ending the war in Iraq, in fact, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) under which all U.S. combat troops were withdrawn at the end of 2011 was signed on November 17, 2008,
under the Bush administration. Obama was critical of the SOFA, his
publicly stated position being that the troops should be withdrawn
sooner. "In contrast," the New York Times noted
at the time, "President-elect Obama had campaigned under a promise to
withdraw all American combat brigades from Iraq by May 2010".
Obama
not only did not keep that promise, but his administration sought since
as early as September 2010 to obtain a new agreement with Iraq under
which 15,000 to 20,000 combat troops would remain beyond the deadline at
the end of 2011; but "Obama insisted that it could only happen if
Maliki requested it", wrote
investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter, since the White
House "was worried about losing support from the Democratic Party's
anti-war base as Congressional mid-term elections approached". The Wall Street Journal similarly pointed out
that "Mr. Obama could face a political backlash at home if he doesn't
meet his campaign pledge to bring troops home from Iraq", and by April
2011, the U.S. had dropped the number of troops it sought to keep in
Iraq down to 10,000. The discussions over a new agreement "face
political obstacles in both countries," the Journal also noted,
"and have faltered in recent weeks because of Iraqi worries that a
continued U.S. military presence could fuel sectarian tension and lead
to protests similar to those sweeping other Arab countries".
None of the fact checkers bothered to acknowledge what Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th:
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
Mark Leon Goldberg (UN Dispatch) points out, "Mitt Romney was almost certainly referring to the Arab Human Development Report. This is a groundbreaking study organized by the United Nations Development Program
that gives regional scholars a platform to write dispassionate, self
critical assessments of the Arab world's progress on a myriad of social
development indicators. This includes indices like literacy rates;
internet access; maternal mortality rates; primary school enrollment; adolescent fertility rates; higher educational attainment; among others."
No comments:
Post a Comment