Friday, June 24, 2016

Clinton suffers from bad gas

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

    • "DID YOU HEAR THE RUMORS THAT I HAVE IRRITABLE BOWEL SYNDROME?  THAT MY IBS EXPLAINS MY NON-STOP FARTING AT CAMPAIGN EVENTS?  THAT MY FARTS ARE SO GHASTLY I'VE BLOWN OUT MY ANAL RING?"

    THESE QUESTIONS WERE PUT TO THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING BY CRANKY CLINTON AFTER WE ATTEMPTED TO ASK HER ABOUT THE LATEST WORK E-MAIL THAT HAS TURNED UP WHICH DAMNS HER AS A LIAR.

    FACED WITH TOUGH QUESTIONS THAT GO TO THE CRIMINAL PROBE THE F.B.I. IS CONDUCTING, CRANKY CLINTON SUDDENLY WANTED TO DISCUSS FARTS.


    "I FART A LOT," SHE CONTINUED.  "AND IT IS BAD.  BILL SAYS THAT'S WHY HE CAN'T SHARE A BED WITH ME BUT HONESTLY THAT STARTED LONG BEFORE I HAD MY GAS PROBLEMS.  BUT IT IS BAD.  I'LL WAKE UP CHOKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT -- IT STINKS SO BAD.  I'VE CLEARED ROOMS BEFORE JUST BY FARTING.  BARACK USED TO JOKE THAT WE SHOULD USE MY GAS AS A W.M.D.  HE SHOULD TALK, THOUGH, WITH THOSE STINKY FEET."

    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    And empty words don't end the Iraq War.


    Not everyone's silent.


    US House Rep Seth Moulton, for example, has not been silent.


    Yesterday I lost my closest friend in the Iraqi Army to ISIS and our failed policy in Iraq.
    7:47 PM - 5 May 2016


     Salem, MA
    432 retweets550 likes





    From the May 13th snapshot:
    Yesterday on CNN's THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER, Jake spoke with US House Rep
    Seth Moulton (and just as soon as CNN posts a video or a transcript, we'll note a link -- instead, we'll just link to Jake's Twitter):

     Jake Tapper:  So you blame the Obama administration's failed ISIS policy of the death of your Iraqi comrade who you describe as "your closest friend."  Why?

     US House Rep Seth Moulton: He was my closest friend in the Iraqi army and the bottom line is that we have a military strategy to defeat ISIS but we don't have any longterm political strategy to ensure the peace.  And that's why we find ourselves back in Iraq again today refighting the same battles that I, myself, my fellow Marines and soldiers fought just eight or ten years ago

     Jake Tapper: And what needs to change, sir?

     US House Rep Seth Moulton:  We need to have a clear mission for the troops, a clear end game, a clear goal that they can achieve and than a strategy to maintain the peace once we defeat this terrorist group because, look, we already fought these same battles against al Qaeda but then when we pulled out of Iraq so quickly and not just pulling out the troops, I'm talking about pulling out the diplomats.  I'm talking about the people that were working in the prime minister's office, in the ministries.  The Iraqi government just went off the rails and as a result created this political vacuum that ISIS came in to occupy.  We cannot keep repeating this mistake in Iraq, going back again and again.
    Jake Tapper:  Now there are more than 4,000 US personnel, US military personnel, in Iraq right now but the White House argues this is not a combat mission.  Do you think that the Obama administration is misleading the American public.

     US House Rep Seth Moulton:  That's just simply not true, this absolutely is a combat mission.  In 2004, I had an advisory mission as a Marine with my platoon in Iraq.  We were advisors to an Iraqi unit and when that unit started to get overrun, we went to their assistance and started the battle of Najaf which was some of the fiercest fighting of the war until that time.  So there's a very fine line between an advisory mission and full fledged combat. It's very clear from the death of the Navy Seal just last week that this is absolutely a combat mission.
    Jake Tapper:  Why do you think the White House is-is pursuing the strategy that they're pursuing -- calling it an advisory mission, not a combat mission? Not pursuing the line of attack that you're suggesting they need to -- in terms of the clear strategy with an end game?  Why?
    US House Rep Seth Moulton:  I don't know.  I mean, some would say that this is trying to do war on the cheap just like the Bush administration when they got us involved in in the first place.  Let's not forget that we wouldn't be involved in this mess at all if George Bush hadn't invaded Iraq with faulty intelligence back in 2003.  But this a president who promised to get us out of Iraq and promised to use the tools of diplomacy to prevent wars from happening -- and that just hasn't happened.  You know if you think about what happened when ISIS swept into Iraq from Syria, they didn't just defeat the Iraqi army.  The Iraqi army put their weapons down and went home because they had lost faith in their government.  And yet our solution, our strategy, is to train Iraqi troops.  Well you don't fix Iraqi politics by training Iraqi troops. And Iraqi politics are broken.  That's the fundamental problem in Iraq that we need to fix.


    And, thing is, Barack agrees with Seth Moulton -- or did on June 19, 2014 when he (Barack) declares that the only answer to Iraq's crises was a political solution.


    Yet the last two years has the seen the US government drop more bombs on Iraq and send more US troops in while doing nothing to help broker a political solution.

    Tonight, THE WASHINGTON POST website published a column by Moulton which includes:


     In April, I visited some of the almost 5,000 troops that President Obama has put back in Iraq, and I witnessed a recurring theme: We have a military plan to defeat the Islamic State — and, as initial gains in Fallujah this week demonstrate, it’s going well in many respects — but we have yet to articulate a political plan to ensure Iraq’s long-term stability.

    Sometimes it’s impossible to tell whether it’s 2007 or 2016. The battle plans I hear from our commanders in Iraq today are the same ones I heard at the beginning of the surge, down to the same cities and tribal alliances. My question is: How will this time be different? The silence is deafening.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Those weak, weak Congressional Dems"
    "Lock her up already"
    "Hillary's village of predators"
    "MAYA & MARTY again"
    "Censorship"
    "Where are the jobs?"
    "It takes a village of idiots to support a War Criminal"
    "Clinton and Libya and oil"
    "Hillary Corruption Clinton"
    "Nick Jonas' "Chainsaw""
    "hillary clinton is obese"
    "THIS JUST IN! WHAT ACCOMPLISHMENTS???"
    "Cranky Clinton gets cranky"



  •  

    • Posted by at No comments:

    Thursday, June 23, 2016

    Cranky Clinton gets cranky



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


    • CRANKY CLINTON'S USE OF A PRIVATE E-MAIL SERVER WAS WRONG IN SO MANY WAYS AND NOW AMERICA LEARNS THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAD TO TURN OFF SECURITY FEATURES AT ONE POINT JUST SO CRANKY'S E-MAILS FROM HER PRIVATE SERVER COULD REACH STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, CRANKY INSISTED WHAT SHE DID WAS IN KEEPING WITH "EVERY SECRETARY OF STATE BEFORE ME.  I'M SURE IF YOU LOOKED AT THOMAS JEFFERSON'S WEB BROWSING HISTORY AND HIS E-MAILS, YOU'D FIND THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS."

    WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE INTERNET DID NOT EXIST UNTIL AL GORE INVENTED IT, CRANKY FUMBLED FOR A RESPONSE.

    "YOU KNOW WHAT?" SHE ASKED FINALLY.  "ALL THE PRESS DOES IS FOCUS ON MY MISTAKES.  WHAT ABOUT MY ACCOMPLISHMENTS?  WHY DOESN'T ANYONE EVER TALK ABOUT THEM?"

    ASKED FOR EXAMPLES OF SOME ACCOMPLISHMENTS, CRANKY FELL SILENT FOR SEVERAL MINUTES BEFORE SNARLING, "YOU KNOW WHAT?  I HAD SOCKS THE CAT PUT DOWN AND I CAN DO THE SAME WITH YOU!"


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    Since August of 2014, the US government has bombed Iraq daily.


     21 hours ago
    Recall: our current bombing campaign in Iraq was pitched as "limited". It's now almost 2 yrs old.
     


    98 retweets94 likes







    Today, the US Defense Dept announced:



    Strikes in Iraq
    Rocket artillery and bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:
    -- Near Beiji, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed eight ISIL fighting positions, three ISIL vehicles, an ISIL improvised explosive device, an ISIL vehicle-borne IED, four ISIL rocket rails, two ISIL mortar systems, an ISIL supply cache and an ISIL anti-air artillery piece and damaged five ISIL berms.
    -- Near Fallujah, three strikes struck two separate large ISIL tactical units and destroyed 11 ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle, two ISIL heavy machine guns, five ISIL light machine guns, five ISIL rocket propelled grenade systems and two ISIL mortar systems and denied ISIL access to terrain.
    -- Near Kisik, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL assembly areas, an ISIL tunnel and three ISIL rocket rails.
    -- Near Mosul, four strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles, six ISIL assembly areas and an ISIL rocket system.
    -- Near Qayyarah, three strikes destroyed three ISIL rocket rails and denied ISIL access to terrain.
    -- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed nine ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL light machine gun, an ISIL rocket-propelled-grenade system, an ISIL boat and three ISIL weapons caches.
    -- Near Tal Afar, a strike suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun position.
    Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.



    That they'll release.

    Other things?


    Not really.


    At yesterday's Pentagon press conference moderated by press secretary Peter Cook, the following exchange took place


     Q:  Peter, during last week's briefing, the issue of injured American service members came up, and you said you would take the question and look into it.

          Can you confirm that four American service members were injured in Northern Syria on June 9th?

          MR. COOK:  (Inaudible) -- this is -- I'm glad you raised the question, because this does raise a question, a policy question for us about identifying injured service members.

          And as I stated last week, and probably should have stated more clearly, our policy is not to identify wounded service members, for a variety of reasons -- including operational security, including privacy reasons.

          And so, I'm not going to be able to elaborate more fully on that situation.  Just as I wouldn't with other wounded service members, because of that -- because of our policy in place.

          Q:  I believe on May 31, the Pentagon did come out and say there were two service members, one in Iraq and one in Syria, who were injured and I think you even gave a specific location -- (inaudible), north of Raqqah.  And I'm not asking for a specific location or name.  You know, were there American service members injured?  Because in the past, you have acknowledged when they have been injured.

          MR. COOK:  And what -- and of course one of the things that we're concerned about here is not just operational security -- (inaudible), but also, we do not want to provide additional information to the enemy that might enhance their own assessment of the battlefield situation and their own impact.

          Q:  (inaudible) -- because on May 31, you did give out two numbers of Americans injured.

          MR. COOK:  I'm just spelling out right now our policy consistent with what it's been in the past with regard to wounded service members.  We provide information with regard, of course, to casualties.  But for a variety of reasons, we do not provide information on wounded service members and we're going to continue to stick to that, again, because we don't want to provide information to the enemy that might be helpful, we have privacy concerns that we want to address.

          And again, we don't routinely release that information.  There have been some exceptions in the past, but that is our -- our basic policy and I'm going to stick to that policy.





    Cook insisted this was not a change.  Idrees Ali and Leslie Adler (REUTERS) point out, "However, the Pentagon has released such information in the past and responded to queries, and it was unclear how Cook's comments were consistent with previous disclosures."  At the conservative website HOT AIR, Jazz Shaw maintains:

     It’s hard not to read something overtly political into this policy change, no matter how the Pentagon describes it. We’ve already seen the President standing by his policy of not mentioning Islamic terrorism and our own Attorney General has tried to keep mentions of ISIS out of transcripts of conversations with terrorists attacking at home. Any news about battlefield injuries in the war against this enemy clearly plays against the Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton’s election hopes in particular, so suppressing public discussion of such unpleasant realities has a clear political side to it.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Pausing a moment to note it is Barack's war"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "The hollow victory of Falluja"
    "Iraq: Stamps, 'victory' and War Crimes"
    "Hejira"
    "Tulsi Gabbard: Many people simply have not learned..."
    "WikiLeaks on Hillary Clinton's stinky leaks"
    "Rejecting the lesser of two evils (Michael Matteo ..."
    "publicity stunt in the house"
    "Worse than New Orleans"
    "Calling Carly Simon fans"
    "They fixed it for Hillary"
    "TV Amy Poehler, Seann William Scott"
    "Shame on Naomi Klein, Juan Gonzalez and other fake asses"
    "Remember 2008? How they have flipped-"
    "War Hawks of a feather . . ."
    "Hillary doesn't have it sewn up"
    "That dangerous Jill Stein"

    "THIS JUST IN! YOU'LL HAVE MORE LUCK FINDING OUT WHO SHOT JFK!"
    "75 years?"








    Posted by at No comments:

    Sunday, June 19, 2016

    75 years?

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

    • CRANKY CLINTON WAS SO COOPERATIVE IN HANDING OVER HER E-MAILS THAT . . . THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS IT MIGHT TAKE 75 YEARS TO FIND THEM.


    WHICH MEANS THAT WHILE IT'S SUPPOSED TO TAKE 54 YEARS FOR ALL JFK RECORDS TO BE RELEASED (2017), IT WILL TAKE 21 MORE YEARS THAN THAT FOR CRANKY CLINTON'S E-MAILS TO BE RELEASED.





    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    Beyond that, these actions are empty -- these military 'victories.'

    That's before you take into account what 'liberation' has looked like in Ramadi and elsewhere.

    But the military actions are meaningless in terms of wiping out the Islamic State.

    It's a terrorist organization that took root in Iraq because of the government persecuting the citizens.

    Ammar al-Shamary and Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) explain:


    Analysts say the battlefield gains will need to be followed by political reconciliation, since the Islamic State was able to take advantage of Sunni anger at the Shiite-dominated central government.
    The Islamic State is not popular among Sunnis, but resistance in some areas of the country was weak, since many Sunnis did not want to fight on the side of the Iraqi government — allowing the militants to take over large swaths of territory two years ago.
    "Political concessions with Sunnis will be needed for the Fallujah operation to sustain any gains," said Sterling Jensen, an assistant professor at the United Arab Emirates' National Defense College in Abu Dhabi.


    There has been movement on the political front.


    Haider al-Abadi has replaced Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister but the persecution has not changed.

    That's not surprising.

    The two are friendly (at one point, they were friends) and they both hail from the same political party (Dawa).

    Haider's blusters about ending corruption but then appoints a member of Dawa to head the so-called investigations thereby ensuring that Nouri and he himself are protected.

    The corruption starts at the top.

    As does the disregard for the Constitution of Iraq.


    Haider's tossed out vice presidents -- a power he does not have in the Constitution.  He's tried to put together a new Cabinet -- while the old ministers remain in their role -- never having been stripped of the roles by the Parliament (the only body that has the power to do so).


    He long ago lost the support of the leading Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.


    In the face of his continued failures, the 'liberation' means very little.

    It certainly does not wipe away or justify War Crimes that have taken place this week -- such as:


     34 minutes ago
    Iraqi Sunni civilian displaced from Fallujah tortured by Shia Militias

    72 retweets9 likes
     
     
     



     6 hours ago
    Iraqi Sunni woman displaced from Fallujah arrested by Shia militias without guilt or charge in
    23 retweets9 likes
     
     
     




    And then there's the new refugees.


     Jun 14
    43,000 Iraqis Recently Displaced from - - via

    9 retweets8 likes
     
     
     




    With no time spent on a political solution and no time spent on a plan for what happens after the Islamic State is driven out of Falluja, it's really a hollow victory -- if it's even that.

    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)