Saturday, October 01, 2016

Clinton unloads on Bernie Sanders' supporters

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

CRANKY CLINTON MAY STILL KEEP HER WALL STREET SPEECHES TOP SECRET BUT A TAPE HAS LEAKED OF HER SPEAKING TO BIG MONEY FUNDRAISERS WHERE SHE INSULTS BERNIE SANDERS' SUPPORTERS IN THE PRIMARY AS PEOPLE "STILL LIVING IN THEIR PARENT'S BASEMENTS."

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY SNARLED TO THESE REPORTERS, "LET THEM EAT LUCKY CHARMS!  IN THEIR PAJAMAS!  THEY'RE FREAKS!  FREAKS! I AM QUEEN OF THE WORLD!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




The big Iraq news for the week remains Wednesday's revelation that US President Barack Obama will be sending even more US troops into Iraq.  Larisa Epatko (PBS NEWSHOUR) notes, "The authorization followed the July announcement of a 560-troop deployment. The deployments bring the total U.S. troop level in Iraq to 5,262."

From the 'left' we have silence and more silence.  The editorial board of THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE weighs in:

There are some strong arguments against increasing U.S. troop involvement in Iraq at this point.  The first is that the Iraqi national army, which U.S. forces are supplying and training, continues to show itself relatively toothless on the battlefield — meaning that U.S. forces will play a prominent role in whatever assault on Mosul occurs.  Washington has yet to explain coherently why Americans should care one way or the other who holds Mosul, or Raqqa, for that matter. The argument that taking Mosul would validate continued U.S. support of the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and the policy of building it a credible national army has a vaguely “dog-chasing-its-tail” quality to it.  If Mr. Abadi’s government had the general support of the Iraqi people, they would put in the field a credible national army on their own account, and his government would not need more American troops to fight its battles.



In other news . . .




French fighter jets take off on mission against Isil in Iraq










So French war planes will do combat with Islamic State war planes!


Oh, wait.

The Islamic State doesn't have war planes.



The US Defense Dept announced yesterday:




Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft, as well as rocket artillery, conducted 10 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:
-- Near Qaim, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb-making facility.
-- Near Beiji, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a fighting position.
-- Near Haditha, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Kisik, two strikes destroyed an ISIL fighting position and suppressed two ISIL mortar firing positions.
-- Near Mosul, four strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and destroyed a front-end loader, a weapons cache and a vehicle.
-- Near Ramadi, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle and two trench systems.

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.

This is so embarrassing.

Mosul's been held since June of 2014 by a terrorist organization.

It's still held by one.

Barack will be increasing the number of US troops in Iraq to 5262 (using PBS' THE NEWSHOUR number -- special-ops not included in that number).


Now France is joining the US in dropping bombs on Iraq.




All to end the siege of Mosul.


The Islamic State must have millions of fighters in Mosul, right?




US military says 3,000 to 4,500 ISIS fighters (Iraqi & foreign) holed up in Mosul ahead of planned offensive


RECOMMENDED: "Human rights begin at home"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Fan club membership is not activism"
"Man-on-Man"
"That old drunk Tom Hayden"
"HUFFINGTONPOST can't stop lying about Hillary"
"SCREAM QUEENS"
"What does WSWS have against Snowden?"
"some memories of the work of agnes nixon's work"
"The real story about the 2016 campaign"
"Jill Stein on immigration"
"Barack Knows Best"
"Shame on Barack"
"What Marcia said!!!!"
"Clinton lies, Mike Levine mind reads"
"THIS JUST IN! CLINTON LIES!"




Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Clinton lies, Mike Levine mind reads


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

F.B.I. DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY WAS ASKED BY CONGRESS ABOUT CRANKY CLINTON TELLING THE PUBLIC THAT COMEY SAID HER ANSWERS WERE "TRUTHFUL."

HE RESPONDED, "I DID NOT."

DESPITE THIS PATTERN OF DISHONESTY, ABC NEWS 'REPORTER' MIKE LEVINE PEERS INTO CRANKY'S SOUL TODAY TO TELL US WHY SHE DID WHAT SHE DID.

NEXT UP, PSYCHIC MIKE LEVINE ANNOUNCES WHERE JIMMY HOFFA WAS BURIED.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Jed Babbin (WASHINGTON TIMES) offers:

Our Pentagon leaders are reportedly readying a request to President Obama to send another 400 or 500 U.S. troops to Iraq. They would join the 4,400 there and be tasked to help the Iraqis retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State. (According to a Wall Street Journal report, there is an additional force of about 1,500 troops who guard the massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad, some of whom are sent on “special missions.”)
Whatever the troops’ mission, it is painfully obvious that our generals are still stuck on the nation-building strategy that we have pursued in both Iraq and Afghanistan since we invaded those countries in 2001 and 2003. It’s the same strategy that they are following now with the request for more troops to go to Iraq, and it’s just as wrong as it was in 2001.


Baddin's against nation building.

I am as well.  You can't build a government with a military.

But let's set that aside for just a moment.

Let's imagine Hillary Clinton becomes president.

This is a War Hawk belief -- they can build nations.

Barack's already trying.

But dropping bombs daily on Iraq does not form anything but chaos.

So should Hillary get to be president, let's hope there's some maturity in the country -- there wasn't under Barack -- and someone demands that she set goals.

Because if you're going to try nation building, you better be able to show results.

That's not "The leader we installed said . . ."

Statements don't count.

Intentions don't count.

Only results count.

And if Hillary wants to do nation building, she better be held accountable.

(I have no idea if Donald Trump would try nation building.  Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would not engage in it.)

Over two years ago, Barack said he was helping Iraq.

There's still nothing to show for it.

The government's no better than it was then.

They did -- with little fanfare -- recently pass a de-Ba'athifcation law in the Parliament.

It wasn't needed.

L. Paul Bremer did that years ago -- it's cited as one of the biggest disasters of all actions taken after deciding to go to war on Iraq.

Barack has failed at national reconciliation in Iraq.

Why is that a surprise to anyone?

Bully Boy Bush failed at it as well.

As long as you give the (US-installed) government of Iraq what it wants, it's exile prime minister will not do a thing to foster national reconciliation.

Iraq has a very young population.

How many more exiles is the US going to be able to install as prime minister before the Iraqi people revolt?

I think it's nearing the point now.

And, as with most warning signs, everyone in the west is looking elsewhere.



RECOMMENDED: "More US troops headed to Iraq -- PM of Iraq says"
"Iraq snapshot"
"They want to add a debate helper for Hillary"
"I guess a life lived in a closet for over 65 years..."
"WTF Sarah McLachlan?"
"Barack's war on animals"
"Lester's a liar"
"Hillary's for war, war and more war"
"No, it's saying she has poor personal judgment"
"SNOWDEN"
"war dogs"
"Larry Womack, shut the f**k up"
"A powerful message"
"Will & Grace"

"The trend that's taking the country by storm (Trump claims he knew it would happen)"
"THIS JUST IN! HOT TREND OF 2016!"