CRAZED ROBERT PARRY -- ONE TIME JOURNALIST TURNED CONSPIRACY NUT -- CONTINUES HIS DESCENT INTO MADNESS AND CONTINUES HIS DESCENT INTO BEING A SLAVE FOR PRESIDENTIAL COCK.
PARRY BEGAN NOSING AROUND FADED CELBRITY BARRY O'S GROIN IN 2007 AND HAS NEVER REMOVED HIS FACE .
IN PART, HIS LUST FOR THE DAHLI BAMA IS PART OF HIS FEAR OF THE VAGINA.
BUT PARRY IS 100% NUTS.
REFLECTING ON FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES' BOOK, ROBERT PARRY PULLS AT HIS INEFFECTIVE PUD AND PANTS:
Gates then reported on what he regarded as a stunning admission by Clinton, writing: “The exchange that followed was remarkable. In strongly supporting the surge in Afghanistan, Hillary told the president that her opposition to the surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary [in 2008]. She went on to say, ‘The Iraq surge worked.’
“The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.” (Obama’s aides have since disputed Gates’s suggestion that the President indicated that his opposition to the Iraq “surge” was political, noting that he had always opposed the Iraq War. The Clinton team has not challenged Gates’s account.)
But the exchange, as recounted by Gates, indicates that Clinton not only let her political needs dictate her position on an important national security issue, but that she accepts as true the superficial conventional wisdom about the “successful surge” in Iraq.
THE EXCHANGE IS AN INDICTMENT OF BOTH BARRY O AND HILLARY AND IF ROBERT PARRY CAN EVER STOP DROOLING AT BARRY O'S GROIN, HE MIGHT GRASP THAT.
INSTEAD, HE JUST FOAMS AT THE MOUTH AND HUMPS THE LEG OF ANYONE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BE AROUND HIM.
HE'S ALWAYS GOT AN EXCUSE FOR BARRY O.
WHEN THESE REPORTERS ATTEMPTED TO GET A COMMENT FROM PARRY, WE FOUND HIM RUNNING IN AROUND IN CIRCLES SCREAMING, "EXTENZE! I NEED EXTENZE! I'M DUE AT THE COURT OF ST. JAMES! I MUST HAVE MY FEATHERS AND EXTENZE!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Reporters Without Borders has released their World Press Freedom Index 2014. We'll note Iraq in a moment, but first what the report says of the United States:
Countries that pride themselves on being democracies and respecting the rule of law have not set an example, far from it. Freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices. Investigative journalism often suffers as a result.
This has been the case in the United States (46th), which fell 13 places, one of the most significant declines, amid increased efforts to track down whistleblowers and the sources of leaks. The trial and conviction of Private Bradley Manning and the pursuit of NSA analyst Edward Snowden were warnings to all those thinking of assisting in the disclosure of sensitive information that would clearly be in the public interest.
US journalists were stunned by the Department of Justice’s seizure of Associated Press phone records without warning in order to identify the source of a CIA leak. It served as a reminder of the urgent need for a “shield law” to protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources at the federal level. The revival of the legislative process is little consolation for James Risen of The New York Times, who is subject to a court order to testify against a former CIA employee accused of leaking classified information. And less still for Barrett Brown, a young freelance journalist facing 105 years in prison in connection with the posting of information that hackers obtained from Statfor, a private intelligence company with close ties to the federal government.
Ed Hightower (WSWS) reported yesterday on the administration's attack on journalist James Rosen -- an attack not noted above:
The story of this illegal spying on a journalist working for a major news outlet broke last May in the wake of a broader scandal where it was revealed that the DoJ had secretly subpoenaed phone records for 21 lines registered to the Associated Press in an effort to learn the identity of an FBI explosives expert who leaked information on the “underwear bomber” in 2012, during Obama’s reelection campaign.
The affidavit supporting the subpoena request for Rosen’s email and phone records specifically alleged that “there is probable cause to believe that the reporter [James Rosen] has committed or is committing a violation [of the law] at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator,” in part by “employing flattery and playing to Mr. Kim’s vanity and ego.”
In light of this blatant attack on the freedom of the press, attorney general Eric Holder initially tried to distance himself from the warrant affidavit. When it was later revealed that Holder in fact personally approved of the warrant application, with all its bad faith, he confessed that the media probe got “a little out of whack” in a television interview that aired early last June. In that same interview, Holder told interviewer Pete Williams that he had no intention of resigning, saying tepidly “there are some things that I want to do, some things I want to get done that I have discussed with the president and once I have finished that, I’ll sit down with him and we’ll determine when it’s time to make a transition to a new attorney general.”
Now for what the report says about Iraq:
Since 2012, Iraq has been sinking into a new cycle of violence that is an aftereffect of the chaos and civil war following the US-led intervention of 2003. Religious tension between Sunnis and Shiites is being exacerbated by the Syrian crisis and, like the constant obstructiveness of the authorities and security forces, is having a negative impact on the safety of journalists and the independence of the media. In late 2013, for example, ISIS attacked the headquarters of Salaheddin TV in the northern city of Tikrit, killing five of its journalists.
The Committee to Protect Journalists offers "Attacks on the Press: Journalism on the Front Lines in 2013."
In a 2006 book, the late New York Times correspondent Anthony Shadid summed up the future of Iraq as ghamidh, meaning “unclear” or “ambiguous” in Arabic. Seven years later, uncertainty continued to exacerbate the threats that journalists faced. Newspaper offices were attacked by unknown assailants, and journalists were threatened, assaulted, and detained. At least 10 journalists were killed in 2013, but the assailants and their motives were frequently unclear. For all the uncertainty and ambiguity, one truth remained clear: Central government officials and Kurdish regional authorities repeatedly attempted to silence critical voices through a combination of detentions, the denial of credentials, the suspension of television licenses, and raids of stations. Iraqi journalists continued to call for revisions to the Journalist Protection Law, which CPJ criticized for its ambiguous and restrictive provisions. In a sign of hope, the Iraqi parliament withdrew a draft Information Crimes bill that would have restricted online journalism. Still, with so much uncertainty and so little security, journalists continue to flee into exile, amid fears that Iraq could slide back into the dark days of civil war.
CPJ also notes, "With not a single conviction in the 100 journalist murders of the past decade, Iraq remains the worst country in the world for impunity."
Let's move over to twisted and sick people.
That lunatic is trusted with children? (She's the Director of Coptic Orphans.) She's not only crazy, she's stupid beyond belief. If 'God' is responsible for that bombing, 'God' is also responsible for all the others including the bombings that kill people she might like. Is 'God' being funny and showing "a great sense of humor" then too?
Or, Nermien Riad, are you just a stupid asshole that wants to find glee in death so you'll couch your blood thirst on someone else?
Twitter, more and more, appears to exist solely so people can show just how damn stupid they are.
Back to the crazy train.
You shouldn't be laughing at it, but you can't help it?
Could you have maybe helped yourself by not Tweeting about it. Or is really important for someone with such an ugly face wearing such ridiculous clothes to draw attention to himself?
There are sadly many more. Glee in the face of death is tacky enough. As we've noted Monday and Tuesday, even worse is this notion that, because the Iraqi government says something, it must be true. All that is known is a number of people died in bombing. That's nothing to be gleeful about -- not even if you believe the unverified assertion that the dead are 'terrorists.' And to bring 'God' into it? I'm sorry, I don't know the religion that has a higher power commanding you take delight in the deaths of others.
The prayer offered below? I think that prayer and sentiment is recognizable to many religions.
O Allah Make It Easy On The Peopleof Iraq Syria Libya Egypt Sudan Yemen Lebanon Pakistan Palestine Afghanistan
One of the few journalists showing any sense is David Kenner:
Not buying story of Iraqi suicide bomb instructor blowing up himself/pupils until there's source other than Iraq army http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/middleeast/suicide-bomb-instructor-accidentally-kills-iraqi-pupils.html?hp&_r=1 …
That's basic common sense. Kenner has it, his peers should acquire it.
Yesterday, the Council on Foreign Relations had an event with Gen Ray Odierno moderated by CNN's James Sciutto. Odierno was the top-US commander in Iraq
SCIUTTO: If I can, not surprisingly, would like to start tonight on the topic of Iraq. It's been a bad couple of weeks, couple of months there. You have the Al Qaida-linked Islamic State of Iraq, ISIS, taking over Fallujah. A thousand killed last month, 9,000 in 2013. I just want to ask your view, in light of your time there, do you think Iraq at this stage is recoverable? And do you think a U.S. force presence there, had the administration and Iraqi leadership managed to reach agreement, would have made a measurable difference?
ODIERNO: Well, first, I don't know if it's -- I mean, it's recoverable, but how long it would take to recover, I don't know. 2010, '11, we really bought time and space for the Iraqi people and the government to move forward. Security and violence was at, you know, really significant lows. But we always knew in the end, following the 2010 election, which was a very close election in Iraq, where, really, Maliki's party, who was the one that was in power, actually came in a very close second.
And so as they went through the process of the parliamentary system of building the government to take over, there was hope that there'd be great cooperation, but we realized then, as it took six to eight months to form the government, that there was going to be problems in forming the government.
So what happened is, although they had the time and space to continue -- because security was good -- to build the economy, to increase oil flow -- really, they were never able to reconcile between the different groups. And so what you saw is a continuing mistrust of the political entities within Iraq.
And as that mistrust grew, you saw other factions begin over time -- after about a two-year period -- to start to take advantage of that governmental mistrust and exploit the situation, which then created more violence. And some say Maliki came down too hard on the Sunnis, had to move more towards Iran. All of those are potential possibilities, but the bottom line is that the government in place was not able to come together in order to represent all of the Iraqi people. And when that didn't happen, they then started to revert back to violence.
And so what it's going to take is the politicians to come back together. They have an election coming up this year. And how that turns out will really probably dictate how well they move forward in Iraq.
We do know that the oil is -- that oil exports have increased significantly, so economically, actually, they're doing very well. But the violence now is driving them to separate each other. So for us, it's disappointing, because we believe we had them in a place where they could move forward.
And I believe Iraq is in such a strategic place in the Middle East -- just look at where it is on a map. It's right in the center. It's -- you know, it borders Iran, it borders Kuwait, it borders Jordan, it borders Turkey, it borders Syria. It's in such a key place in the Middle East, I thought it was very important that we would have them move forward as a stable government that is friendly to the United States. They're still friendly towards the United States, but right now, the instability in the country is very concerning to all of us as we move forward.
SCIUTTO: It sounds like you say the key is political agreement. How much of a difference would it make if there was a modest force left for...
ODIERNO: Well, I mean, I think -- the bottom line is, I think it depends on how long you were willing to leave that force there. The security forces were capable and able to do what they needed to do. Again, with political disagreement, I'm not sure how much it would matter, how much -- unless we had a significant amount of U.S. force, which was not going to happen, it was time for the Iraqis to take control of their own fate. It was time for them to provide the security. We had built a security force that had the capability to do that.
So in my mind, I'm not sure it would have made much difference if we had a small force on the ground. What it would provide is confidence. Maybe it would have allowed us to put a bit more pressure on the political entities in order for them to maybe reconcile a bit more than they did. Maybe that would have made a difference, but it's hard to say.
File Odierno's comment ("But we always knew in the end, following the 2010 election, which was a very close election in Iraq, where, really, Maliki's party, who was the one that was in power, actually came in a very close second.") under understatement of the year. And note that Odierno, ahead of the March 2010 elections, tried to get the White House to focus on what happens if Nouri loses the election but refuses to step down -- exactly what happened. Odierno's very modest but he deserves credit for seeing what could happen when idiots like then-US Ambassador Chris Stevens could see in front of him, let alone possibilities. We'll come back to the topic of elections.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri notes his forces attacked hospitals"
"The KRG and Ashraf"
"More Drone Protesters, Instead of Pilots, Convicte..."
"Syria: US imperialism and diplomacy"
"Firefox, anti-trust and the frauds who lie (yes, that means Mia)"
"Diana Ross' Greatest Hits Tour"
"Bono still wastes U2's time and our time"
"Why I hate Chicago (and musicals I do love)"
"Little Bitch Robert S. Becker"
"David Walsh takes on Jessica Valenti"
"Medea Benjmain basks in her uselessness"
"Whatever happened to anti-trust laws?"
"How she overplayed her hand"
"He's getting served"
"THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO'S GETTING SUED!"