Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Look what he's willing to gut


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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS STILL THE BITCH, THE LITTLE BACK STABBING BITCH AS A MEMO OF PROPOSALS HE MADE FOR CUTS IN JULY 2011 REVEALS.  THE OFFER WAS MADE TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE JOHN BOEHNER WHO REJECTED THEM.  WHAT BARRY THE BITCH WAS WILLING TO PUT ON THE TABLE FOR CUTS:

Among the programs Obama's staff proposed for $200 billion in spending cuts over the next decade were the military's health care program ($16 billion), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 billion), the government's pension benefit program that stabilizes pension insurance premiums ($9 billion), the Transportation Security Administration ($18 billion) and flood assistance ($4 billion).
It further confirms previous HuffPost coverage that characterized the wealth of cuts that the president was willing to entertain that would disproportionately impact the nation's vulnerable -- the poor, the elderly, young mothers, students and veterans. Lawmakers reconvene in Washington D.C. this week to begin negotiations over how to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, the series of tax hikes and automatic spending cuts slated to go into effect on Jan. 1.

JUST AS CHILDREN ACROSS THE NATION ARE HAVING TO LEARN TO SAY, "NO, DON'T TICKLE ME, ELMO! ESPECIALLY DON'T TICKLE ME DOWN THERE!," ADULTS NEED TO STOP WORSHIPING A TURNCOAT WHO POSES AS A DEMOCRAT BUT REPEATEDLY STABS THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


 
The former top US commander in Iraq from February 2007 to September 2008 was General David Petraeus. Late Friday, Petraeus resigned as CIA Director citing an affair. If this is indeed the reason he stepped down, an affair, if that made him subject to blackmail, then he wasn't properly vetted because he had 'intense' relationships with many female journalists while he was in Iraq and that should have come up when he was up for the post of CIA Director.
 
 
Today on Democracy Now! -- no link to that trash -- Amy Goodman again spoke with CIA contractor Juan Cole and supposedly they talked about counter-insurgency but that would require honesty and you don't get honesty from those currently on the CIA payroll. Michael Crowley's dishonest at Time magazine but we'll put that down to a reluctance to tell the 'ugly truth' about counter-insurgency.
 
 
As Iraq began to stabilize in 2007 and 2008, counterinsurgency got much of the credit. Soon the theory caught fire in Washington: Think tanks hired and the media spotlighted some of the doctrine's many well-educated (and combat tested) proponents. The U.S. military developed more counterinsurgency training programs for its troops, offering tips on things like making nice with village elders and knowing when to let the enemy escape rather than risk high civilian combat casualties. This was a form of warfare that even many liberals (perhaps misguidedly) saw as kinder and gentler enough than the usual shock and awe to tolerate.
 
 
 
Tips on making nice? That sort of leaves out the violence and intimidation, doesn't it? Counter-insurgency isn't just handing out a bunch of water bottles, it's about getting a native people to turn on their own. That means ratting out fellow Iraqis to foreigner invaders. And the ratting out? What comes after that? Do the foreign invaders just hand out daisies? No. They take out the fingered.
 
 
Counter-insurgency did not emerge during the Iraq War. It has a long history. It failed in Vietnam (even the CIA admits that) and it generally does fail. But before that's apparent, a lot of people are killed and a lot of people are harmed. Crowley gets closer to the truth in this passage:
 
 
Those sort of targeted assassinations aren't quite the opposite of counterinsurgency. (That would be carpet-bombing.) But they fly in the face of the doctrine in multiple ways. Drone strikes -- which often kill unlucky civilians -- are enraging local populations in countries like Pakistan and Yemen, risking "damaging and counter productive" effects for U.S. interests. At least one recent would-be terrorist plotting to attack America has said he was motivated by drone attacks in Pakistan. Counterinsurgency requires huge numbers of troops to protect and build relationships with local populations. Drone-based counter-terrorism strategy requires few if any boots on the ground. Death is rained down anonymously, typically no explanation or apology for "collateral damage."

Of course, death isn't 'rained down anonymously.' The surivovrs blame the US government for the deaths. As Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) noted yesterday, the immediate effect of the Petraeus saga is that he may not be testifying to Congress about the Benghazi attack that claimed the lives of Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens.  The editorial board of the Orlando Sentinel argues, "Lawmakers should not let the tabloid-worthy story at the CIA sidetrack them from a thorough investigation into the security failures in the attack in Benghazi. They should insist on hearing directly from Petraeus -- even though he's no longer in charge."  The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune agrees, "Petraeus should volunteer to testify at the hearing. There are already many questions about what happened in and after the attack in Benghazi, and his abrupt departure from the CIA has created more suspicion. There is only one reason for him not to testify -- to spare himself more public embarrassment."
 
One hearing on Benghazi this week will be presided over by Senator Dianne Feinstein who is the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  She told Chris Wallace yesterday (on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace) that she wasn't told about the investigation of Petraeus until Friday, "We received no advanced notice.  It was like a lightning bolt.  The way I found out, I came back to Washington, Thursday night.  Friday morning, the director told me there were a number of calls from press about this.  I called David Petraeus.  And as a matter of fact I had had an appointment with him, at 3:00 that afternoon, and that was canceled."  When were others told, such as the president?  Mike Levine, Chatherine Herridge and Judson Berger (Fox News) report that despite Attorney General Eric Holder being informed Petreaus was part of an ongoing FBI probe, the White House states "the president did not find out about the situation until last Thursday."   The editorial board of the Washington Post argues that if these are the facts -- with nothing else to be added -- they don't believe Petraeus should have resigned:
 
 
THE RESIGNATION of David Petraeus as CIA director is a serious blow to the nation's national security leadership, and it comes at an unfortunate moment. With the expected departure of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and a possible reshuffling of senior officials at the National Security Council, President Obama could have benefited particularly from Mr. Petraeus's knowledge and seasoning as he begins to grapple with second-term challenges in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere. Mr. Petraeus understands those issues as well as any American, and his record of service as a military commander is without equal in his generation.
Given those facts, some have questioned whether Mr. Obama should have accepted Mr. Petraeus's resignation. The CIA director was found to have committed no crime. Adultery, which he confessed to, is not uncommon, including presumably among his agency's staff. However, in our view the president made the right call. Mr. Petraeus's failing was not merely an illicit relationship; he recklessly used a Gmail account to send explicit messages and, as a result, was swept up in an FBI investigation of alleged cyberstalking. Such behavior would not be acceptable in the private sector, or in the military, as Mr. Petraeus recognized.
 
 
The Chicago Tribune editorial notes that the woman Petraeus had an affair with had access to classified documents (which Petraeus states must have come from someone else) and that she gave a speech in October where she declared the attack on the Benghazi facility was because the CIA was holding Libyans in a secret prison there. 
 
 
Moving over to Iraq where the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is supposed to run Iraq, not ruin the country. Possibly he misunderstood? He's forever in search of new enemies to tick off. For example, from Friday's snapshot:


After the decision last month to buy billions of weapons from Russia, it may appear Russia and Iraq are getting very close -- and they might be. But friendly? Do you threaten a friend? AFP reports, "Baghdad has told Russian energy giant Gazprom to either cancel its energy contracts in Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region or abandon its work with the central government, a spokesperson said on Friday."
October 9th, Nouri was strutting across the world stage as he inked a $4.2 billion weapons deal with Russia. Then something happened 30 days later and the status of the deal became in question. Was it all just buyer's remorse over a big-ticket item? Saturday, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Joe Sterling (CNN) reported:

Iraq's prime minister has canceled a recently signed arms deal with Russia after "suspicions over corruption" surfaced, his spokesman told CNN on Saturday.
Under the $4.2 billion deal forged last month, Russia would deliver attack helicopters and mobile air-defense systems to Iraq.
 

Amani Aziz (Al Mada) reported that there are senior Iraqi government officials who are involved with a brother of Russian President Vladimir Putin. All Iraq News noted there are calls for Nouri to step forward and clear his name. Al Rafidayn added Nouri spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi announced that the deal is off. New contracts may be needed, he said, because weapons are, but the deal is off. AP hedged the bets  going with language about the deal being "reconsidered" and in "turnaround." Reuters spent the day providing constant updates and in their third one they noted, "In a confusing exchange, the announcement by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office was immediately contradicted by the acting defence minister who denied the corruption charges and said the Russian arms deals were still valid." RIA Novosti reminded, "At the time the deal was announced in October, the Russian press had hailed it as the country's largest since 2006. Under the contract, Moscow is to supply 30 Mil Mi-28NE night/all-weather capable attack helicopters, and 50 Pantsir-S1 gun-missile short-range air defense systems." Al Mada reports today that Iraqiya is demanding Nouri provide a report to Parliament explaining the details of the weapons deal with Russia.

If the deal is off, Nouri looks rather poor on the world stage. But then, he already did as Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) notes today:
 
Those who saw the picture released by the prime minister's office of Nuri al-Maliki inspecting fighter jets by knocking on the metal body of the plane should not be surprised that he has decided to halt the deal out of suspicion of corruption.
The picture should have sounded alarm bells for the Russians, Czechs and people of Iraq. He seemed like a man shopping for a car in a sales lot, not a head of state buying strategic weapons. From the start, the deal did not seem to have been examined well or to have gone through the proper procurement procedures.
 
 
You don't make a four billion dollar deal, take the bows nationally and internationally for it, then cancel a few weeks later without your image taking a huge hit to your image. That's setting charges of corruption to the side. Those who hoped that, come Monday, something as basic as whether the deal was on or off would be known were hoping in vain.
The World Tribune states, "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki has canceled a $4.2 billion weapons contract with Russia amid allegations of bribery. But the Defense Ministry,
which signed the deal, has insisted that the project would continue." 
 



RECOMMENDED:




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)