Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Barack responds

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


FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O IS FACING CRITICISM FROM MANY BUT THE MOST DAMAGING MAY BE FROM SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA.

"TOO OFTEN IN MY VIEW THE PRESIDENT RELIES ON THE LOGIC OF THE LAW PROFESSOR RATHER THAN THE PASSION OF A LEADER," PANETTA SAID.

BARRY O RESPONDED TO THE COMMENT TO THESE REPORTERS, "WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING A LAW PROFESSOR?  PEOPLE LOVE LAWYERS!  WE'RE LIKE RIGHT UP THERE WITH SEXY FIRE MEN AND STUFF."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



It is now months since US President Barack Obama sent the first wave of 'advisors' into Iraq to determine what was needed.  The 'advisors' were US military in one form or another.

So is it really that surprising that what Barack's so-called 'plan' ended up being was a military action?

Barack has repeatedly (and rightly) insisted that what Iraq needs is a political solution, that only such a solution will provide stability and ease the tensions at the root of Iraq's multiple crises; however, his 'advisors' sent in to determine how to address the crises were not experts in politics or diplomacy.

Had they been, Barack might have had some sort of political aspect for his 'plan.'

Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts (Bemidji Pioneer) note in their syndicated column:

The president has set out two clear principles. The first is to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” the extreme jihadist movement also known as ISIS and Islamic State that now occupies large swaths of Iraq and Syria. The second is to accomplish that goal without deploying American combat troops.
“As your commander in chief,” he told soldiers based in Tampa, Fla., “I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”
But what if those two principles are not compatible? What if the resources Obama is prepared to commit — American airpower and advisers, working with local military assets — are not sufficient to accomplish the mission of crippling ISIL? Then what?

Then what indeed?

Yesterday, Barack added to the military 'plan' of endless bombing by putting US Apache helicopters into the mix.  Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) explains:



The United States escalated its involvement yesterday, sending helicopters into combat against targets west of Baghdad — the first time low-flying Army aircraft have engaged in President Obama’s new campaign in Iraq, despite promises it would not include “boots on the ground.”
Until yesterday, U.S. airstrikes in Iraq had involved Air Force and Navy jets and drones. The use of the low, slow-flying helicopters also suggests the security situation in Iraq’s Anbar province is deteriorating. Last week, the Islamic State terrorists overran numerous Iraqi bases and towns.


Dan Lamothe (Washington Post) explains, "Using Apaches introduces considerably more risk to the U.S. troops involved, however. While fighter jets and bombers might have to contend with mechanical malfunctions, they can operate in Iraq unimpeded by rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that can be used to target low-flying aircraft. Helicopters have been shot down over Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia in the last 25 years."  And an Iraqi helicopter was shot down days ago by the Islamic State, "AP reports the Islamic State 'shot down an Iraqi military attack helicopter' near Baiji on Friday. NINA adds both pilots were killed in the crash."

Of the helicopters, RT observes, "Their use in aggressive bombing of areas controlled by Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) could signal mission creep for the US military, which US President Barack Obama has said will not take part in ground-force operations."  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) points out, "The eventuality of such a shootdown is likely to mean US ground troops sent on rescue missions to try to recover the downed pilots. This could end up being the pretext for launching a ground operation against ISIS, and such an incident seems only a matter of time."  Ben Farmer (Irish Independent) echoes that point, "Though they are known for their formidable battlefield firepower, they are also more vulnerable to ground fire than the attack jets and bombers that have so far led the air campaign."

Of the air campaign, right-wing  Kimberly Kagan and her husband Frederick (Foreign Policy) are unhappy with the level of war Barack is providing and they want ground troops and they want them now:

The U.S. has hit about 334 mostly tactical targets in both Syria and Iraq in the intervening 50-odd days. To put that number in perspective, the 76-day air campaign that toppled the Taliban in 2001 dropped 17,500 munitions on Afghanistan. Those bombs directly aided the advance of thousands of Afghan fighters supported by U.S. special operators capable both of advising them and of identifying and designating targets to hit. There are no U.S. special operators on the ground in Iraq or Syria, no pre-planned or prepared advance of Iraqi security forces, and no allies on the ground in Syria. This is not an air campaign.


It's also not a 'plan' but you probably have to be concerned about Iraq, and not getting sexually aroused by the killing, to notice that.


Barack's plan is getting attention today -- for so many reasons.  Reasons like the bombing in Hit which has resulted in 42 people being injured and 24 killed.





: مقتل(24)مدنيا، وإصابة 42 آخرين بجروح -في حصيلة أولية-؛ جراء قيام الطيران باستهداف سوق شعبي وسط قضاء هيت. .





What you can see above with your own eyes and what medical sources in Hit report isn't good enough for the US military command.  Nabih Bulos and Patrick J. McDonnell (Los Angeles Times) quote CENTCOM spokesperson Major Curtis J. Kellogg insisting, "We have seen the media reports alleging civilian casualties in Hit, Iraq.  However, based on our current assessment, we believe them to be false and have seen no evidence to corroborate these claims. I can assure you that prior to any mission, every precaution is taken to ensure we do not harm civilians or civilian facilities. However, we take all such reports seriously and look into them further."  By all means, look further at the photo and maybe take some time to speak with the local hospital.  You know Kellogg is just hoping there's no serious media interest -- like last week when US bombings in Mosul resulted in the deaths of 4 Iraqi civilians.  He's hoping there's no interest and, if that's the case, in a week or so you can expect CENTCOM to quietly release a minor statement acknowledging the 'regrettable' deaths and pretending that such deaths happen in spite of Barack's 'plan' as opposed to because of Barack's 'plan.'

The 'plan' is a failure.  The decision to send in US helicopters is an acknowledgment of that.  But it doesn't alter the 'plan,' it only feeds into the worst parts of the 'plan' and the overall failure of the 'plan.'






RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"More bombings, more plagiarism, very little diplom..."
"Hejira"
"London marchers say no to new Iraq war"
"Robert Fisk echoes C.I."
"Gloria Steinem sells out women again"
"The Originals"
"This Iraq event makes no sense to me"
"charlotte is david clarke's daughter"
"Tina Fey bombs again"
"Oh, Joe"
"That awful show Supernatural"
"The Flash"
"Protest in London"
"Well, it would be karma"
"THIS JUST IN! WHO'S GETTING DEPORTED!"


  • Sunday, October 05, 2014

    Well, it would be karma

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

    FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O HAS NOW, IN 6 YEARS, DEPORTED MORE PEOPLE FROM THE UNITED STATES THAN BULLY BOY BUSH DID IN 8.

    TWO WHO WERE NOT DEPORTED WERE HIS MANLY LOOKING AUNT AND HIS DRUNKEN UNCLE WITH THE ARREST RECORD.

    BUT THE FAMILY STREAK MAY BE RUNNING OUT . . . A DEMAND TO DEPORT BARRY O HIMSELF IS NOW BEING MADE.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "DEPORT ME?  SINCE MY FATHER GOT DEPORTED, WE OBAMAS HAVE LEARNED HOW TO HIDE OUT HERE, ESPECIALLY IN BOSTON!  CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!"


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    Former US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill has told a pack of lies.

    Those lies smear Hillary and Barack.  If they were personally smeared -- Hillary or Barack said to be gay in Hill's efforts to court homophobia, for example -- I wouldn't waste time on the issue.  But this is about Iraq and that's what we cover.

    Chris Hill is responsible for what went wrong in Iraq and for where Iraq is today.  He's not solely responsible.  Barack's responsible, for example, for nominating him, for trusting him for far too long and for a few other things.

    But Hill's nonsense at POLITICO -- where else does nonsense go -- oh, right, Salon! -- is nothing but lies and spin.

    Hill betrayed Barack's nomination and trust by doing a half-assed job and repeatedly lying to the administration about what was taking place in Iraq.

    Hill betrayed Barack.  Not the other way around as Hill tries to paint it in his bad essay.


    Hill insists that Hillary gave him no support when she was Secretary of State in 2009, she made one trip to Iraq and she left him alone and whine, whine, whine.

    Hillary wasn't over Iraq.

    She might have liked to have been but Barack wasn't going to put her over Iraq.

    Two reasons were Samantha Power.  She was Barack's advisor when he was in the Senate and she's had his ear ever since.  Power did not want Hillary in the administration (she can spin that if she wants but she didn't want Hillary in the administration at all -- however, once the two had to work together, they did get along -- Hillary can win people over and Power saw that she had misjudged Hillary and could own that reality).  That's reason one.  Reason two, which Power used to ensure Hillary wasn't in charge of Iraq, was that Hillary supported the Iraq War at the start.  Power said that judgment was fatal to moving forward in Iraq.  (Power herself supported the illegal war -- a fact she's denied and one that the press, in 2008, was eager to help her bury.)

    Power was personally against Hillary and Hillary had supported the war and was notorious for that support.

    Those are two reason which carried weight with Barack.

    Here's the third:


    During my last visit to Iraq in January, I expressed my reservations about the ability of the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Maliki, to make the tough political decisions necessary for Iraq to resolve its sectarian divisions. Since my visit, Iraqi leaders have not met their own political benchmarks to share power, modify the de-Ba'athification laws, pass an oil law, schedule provincial elections, and amend their constitution. During his trip to Iraq last week, Senator Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I serve, confirmed that the Iraqi Government’s failures have reinforced the widely held view that the Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement, because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders.
    I share Senator Levin’s hope that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks. 



    That statement was released by then-Senator Hillary Clinton in August of 2007.

    I happen to agree with her -- and with Carl Levin.

    I think history and events since certainly demonstrate how accurate her publicly expressed hope was -- that the Parliament would vote Nouri out of office -- it would have been a no-confidence vote (which was attempted in the spring of 2012 but blocked by the White House via Jalal Talabani).

    But here's was the thing for Barack -- how could Hillary be Secretary of State and interact with Nouri?

    She couldn't.

    So she was not the lead on Iraq.

    That's why she traveled, she had a lot of time to fill.  Unlike her predecessor Condi Rice, Hillary was not a lead on Iraq.

    She can rightly step away -- to some degree -- from the chaos in Iraq now because she was not a lead on this issue.

    Nouri al-Maliki was notoriously paranoid.  We explained that here and how the State Dept had documented it and some wanted to scoff but, years later, the WikiLeaks Iraq State Dept cables demonstrated we were right and the term "paranoid" is applied to Nouri in them.

    Nouri could not have worked with Hillary in any form because of her statements.  The White House knew that and addressed that.

     For those late to the party, Nouri al-Maliki was only booted out as prime minister over the summer.  His reign of terror ran from 2006 to 2014.

    So for Chris Hill to lie and claim that Hillary wasn't there for him -- his snide remark about her ability to charm included -- is just a pack of lies.  And he was not her nominee.

    He was Barack's nominee.

    Let's note another liar, CIA contractor Juan Cole.  The day after Hillary issued her statement we noted above -- a week after Carl Levin made his (Carl's statement was a joint statement with Senator John Warner)  -- Juan 'discovers' a rumor that there is a plot to topple Nouri.  It turns out, Juan insists, Bully Boy Bush wants to get rid of Nouri.

    These lies were then spread by venereal disease carrier Daily Kos which reposted Juan's 'proof' that Ayad Allawi was going to be the new pm because -- among other things -- Allawi penned a column for the Washington Post!

    How sinsister!!!!

    Juan just makes s**t up -- or maybe follows CIA orders, who knows.

    But Bully Boy Bush was not walking away from Nouri and you can say, "Well, C.I., sure, we know that now but back then --"

    Back then, we knew it too.

    Hillary's statement that we quoted?

    A response for Bully Boy Bush's praise of Nouri to the VFW just before she released her statement.  Her statement was in response to Bully Boy Bush's comments.

    From the White House transcript of that August 22, 2007 speech to the VFW:


    Bully Boy Bush: Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. (Applause.) A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)  


    The next day, at his (un)Informed Comment, Juan Cole was spreading lies that Bully Boy Bush was walking away from 'poor' Nouri.  Cole hadn't read the speech and, as usual, didn't know a damn thing.


    Back to Hill,  Barack made a mistake in choosing Chris.

    In his article, Chris wants to paint Barack as disengaged and uninformed.

    On some topics, that is true of Barack and his presidency.

    But no one was more disengaged from Iraq and uninformed than Chris Hill.

    At the start of his presidency, Barack cared a great deal about Iraq because it was how he won the White House.  He wrongly agreed to back Nouri in 2010 and that was based in part on Samantha Power insisting US forces would not be able to drawdown at the end of 2011 without the "stability" (the term she used) Nouri provided the country.

    In 2010, Ayad al-Allawi won the elections.

    Power felt Allawi as prime minister was a question mark and she noted his "populist leanings" (again, her term) and how this could be a problem for the US because Nouri had no desire to represent the Iraqi people and was more inclined to ignore the will of the Iraqi people.  (Which does sum up his two terms as prime minister, on that Power was correct.)

    Barack ultimately bears responsibility.  He is president and he made the decision.

    But would he have made it if he received accurate reports?

    If the administration received accurate reports, I doubt even Samantha Power would have backed Nouri.  I think she would have smelled the stench wafting off him and how damaging he could be to her image of "Never Again!" and argued that Barack shouldn't support him for a second term.

    Chris Hill was unsuited for the job he was nominated to perform.

    He did not speak Arabic.  He had no knowledge of the Middle East and was an idiot when it came to Iraq.

    We covered his confirmation hearing (see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th snapshot ) and, despite weeks of briefing, he still didn't understand what was going on, what the issues were or what the facts were.  (He also showed up at the confirmation hearing with his hair needing to be combed and a food stain on his shirt.  Was he applying for night manager at Denny's or US Ambassador to Iraq?)




    Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Chris Hill rewrites history to attack Barack, Hill..."
    "That awful Saturday Night Live"
    "Barack deports more people in 6 years than Bully Boy Bush in 8 years"
    "Why we hate White men like Lorne Michaels"
    "18 men and 1 woman, why does CounterPunch hate women"
    "Idiot of the week"
    "yvette nicole brown"
    "Alyssa Milano leaves Mistresses"
    "Gone Girl (no spoilers)"
    "Carrie"
    "Racist Lena Dunham in more trouble"
    "Time for a Good Times movie?"
    "Rot in hell, David Corn"
    "War Whore"
    "Dixon takes down Dyson"
    "How To Get Away With Murder"
    "How To Get Away With Murder episode 2"
    "Well said, Sally Kohn"
    "Disgusting"
    "Fact check?"
    "scandal disappoints"
    "If he's lost Piers . . ."
    "THIS JUST IN! HE'S LOST PIERS!"





  • Thursday, October 02, 2014

    If he's lost Piers . . .

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

    FORMER CNN ANCHOR PIERS MONTGOMERY USED TO WORSHIP FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O. APPARENTLY NO LONGER. MONTGOMERY WROTE A BLISTERING COLUMN:


    President Obama this week committed professional suicide. He managed to single-handedly alienate 200,000 employees in the American intelligence agencies by going on 60 Minutes and ruthlessly chucking them all under a bus over the rise of terror group ISIS. A more shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing it would be hard to find from a sitting President. The truth is that Obama is the one who underestimated ISIS, plunging his head ostrich-like into the sand and hoping they would go away without having to do anything to actually make them go away. Far from making America stronger, Obama has made the world’s greatest military power look weak. So weak that these Jihadist thugs think they can behead American citizens with impunity in glossy snuff movies. It’s time he got off the damn golf course, got up to speed with his intelligence briefings and focused on wiping out ISIS.  


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O LAMENTED, "IF I'VE LOST PIER, I'VE LOST MOST OF THE DUTCH AMISH COUNTRY AS WELL!"



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    TRICARE.

    I am hearing the same story over and over from veterans and their spouses with children.

    TRICARE is supposed to be coverage for service members and for veterans -- there's TRICARE for retired, etc.  Think of it as Blue Cross Blue Shield if you need to simplify it.

    John and Joan are married and have a daughter named Jill.

    John is not oversees, he's a service member but he gets stationed here and there.  They do a seven month stint in Colorado.  Five months in, Jill is vomiting and can't stop.  She's taken to the emergency room of the local hospital where they stabilize her.  Jill is taken to a doctor's office or clinic the next day and Dr. Michelle Wong says Jill needs to see a specialist, Dr. Andre Kumar.

    I hope everyone's following example, it's pretty straight forward.

    En route to Dr. Kumar's office, or after being seen, John and Joan are informed that the visit isn't 'authorized' so TRICARE won't be covering it.

    I've heard this basic story over and over in the last four weeks when speaking to veterans groups.

    TRICARE wants a PCP -- a primary care physician.  That would be your family doctor, the doctor you or your children see when you're sick.

    John and Joan are not living in X and never moving.  The military wants them at this base for a limited time and then at that base.  And if there's no reason to change the PCP -- if the child isn't sick or can be treated in a clinic, for example -- the parents don't change the PCP.  Sometimes TRICARE does.

    So when their child does get sick and they seek care, they're suddenly faced with costs and expenses they shouldn't have to deal with.  But TRICARE says their sick child can't see that specialist -- even if a doctor has made the referral -- because they didn't see their PCP.

    I've tried to keep the above simple (there's also an issue of TRICARE assigning PCP's to relocated families).

    TRICARE could keep things real simple by allowing service members and their families to see a specialist if they are referred by another doctor -- it should not have to be a PCP.

    It is ridiculous.

    Joan and John and Jill are not moving because they made the decision, they're moving because the US government is changing where they are stationed.  TRICARE needs to recognize that.

    No service member should have to worry about the costs of caring for their children -- that's especially true when your child is in dire need of a specialist.


    I've tried to keep the above simple.  I've used PCP because that's what most people are familiar with -- most with insurance -- but, for example, in TRICARE, the PCP is called the PCM.

    Calling.  The other big issue.

    As someone who has sat in one hearing after another where members of Congress like Patty Murray, Senator Richard Burr, Senator Bernie Sanders, US House Rep Jeff Miller and US House Rep Mike Michaud have repeatedly asked the VA if they need more money for employees or training or this or that and heard the VA say no?

    Will someone ask the VA, someone in Congress, how they feel about their call center because veterans with health issues -- such as the example above -- are getting real tired of the wait.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "As British jets join raids on Iraq - Protest again..."
    "Barack's failing plan has a big financial cost"
    "Stalker"
    "Netflix is so 2010"
    "victoria's revenge"
    "'Water is not a right'"
    "Brando"
    "Little Ray Ray McGovern's tiny victory"
    "Blameless Barack"
    "Ebola"
    "Cindy Sheehan calls out Pelosi"
    "On Heart and stupidity"
    "Secret Service Director out"
    "THIS JUST IN! HOW THEY FIRED HER!"


  • Wednesday, October 01, 2014

    Secret Service Director out

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


    THE WAY IT WORKED WAS THAT FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O GOT LIKE REALLY MAD AND STUFF AT JULIA PIERSON AND HE WAS ALL LIKE, 'DON'T LET HER SIT AT THE TABLE, TELL HER WE'RE HOLDING THESE SEATS.'

    AND JULIA WAS ALL LIKE, "OKAY, I'LL EAT OVER HERE."

    AND BARRY O WAS ALL, "I DON'T THINK SHE KNOWS HOW PISSED AT HER I AM."

    AND SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST WAS ALL, "TELL HER!"

    AND HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR JEH JOHNSON WAS ALL, "YEAH, MAKE HER CRY!"

    AND BARRY O WAS ALL, "OKAY, MAKE HER CRY."

    SO JEH GOES OVER TO JULIA AND HE'S ALL LIKE, "YOU ARE FIRED!"

    JULIA'S ALL, "NO WAY!  BARRY O WOULD NEVER BE SUCH A LITTLE S**T THAT HE'D HAVE SOMEONE ELSE FIRE ME!"

    "OH, HE'S THAT LITTLE OF A S**T!" JEH INSISTED.


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    The violence never ends in Iraq.  Yesterday, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counted at least 256 violent deaths for Monday.  Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) report that a "wave" of violence has left "at least 47 people" dead today.

    Violence hasn't stopped in Iraq.  Many are starting to register that.

    At the Pentagon today, spokesperson Rear Adm Jack Kirby declared:


    We've been pretty honest about the fact that military action alone will not win this effort, but that shouldn't be taken as an admission of ineffectiveness, and one of the ways we know we're having an effect is precisely because the terrorists have had to change their tactics and their communications and their command and control.  Yes, they're blending in more. Yes, they're dispersing, and yes they aren't communicating quite as openly or as boldly as they once were. That's a good thing, because if they aren't operating as freely, then they aren't as free to achieve their goals.
    That doesn't mean ISIL doesn't still pose a threat. It doesn't mean they aren't still trying and in some cases succeeding at taking and holding ground. No one said this would be easy or quick, and no one should be lulled into a false sense of security by accurate airstrikes. We will not, we cannot bomb them into obscurity.


    Kirby was speaking at a press briefing and, during it, he was asked about yesterday's reports that the Islamic State was close to Baghdad.


    Q: Can we go back to Baghdad for a minute? Because Iraqi officials are saying now there has been ISIS fighting as close as five miles south of Baghdad. So, understanding everything you said, what does that tell you about ISIS's capabilities and intentions towards Baghdad? What concerns do you have about it? And particularly, what looks to be their moves to get in and around Baghdad Airport?

    REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, we've been watching this for awhile, Barb. It's not -- I understand, I've seen the coverage today that you know, they're within five to eight miles or whatever it is, how it's being reported. We have consistently seen them pose a threat to the capital city.

    This is not a new thing. And they'll make an advance and they'll back off. They'll try another way. One of the -- you've seen several of the strikes that we've been doing and the last ten days to two weeks have been to the south and southwest of Baghdad because that's where they've kinda maneuvered to. So, they continuously pose a threat to the capital city, and we continuously, in concert with the Iraqi security forces, are trying to put them back.
    But this should come as no surprise to anybody that they have designs on -- on Baghdad, as they have had designs on other cities and other places of infrastructure throughout the country.

    Q: How convinced are you that Baghdad can be -- remain safe, that Iraqi forces can hold Baghdad, and that Iraqi forces can hold the airport?


    REAR ADM. KIRBY: What I can tell you is -- with certainty is that we're going to do what we can to help Iraqi security forces maintain control of the capital city. As I've said before, they have -- Iraqi security forces in and around Baghdad have been performing well. They've stiffened their defenses. They have -- they have not allowed Baghdad to come under a major assault. They've -- they've done pretty well in and around the city.

    And as I said, we've been helping from the air put pressure on ISIL.


    Q: One last – to press the point one last time, can the Iraqis hold Baghdad and hold the airport on their own without you?

    REAR ADM. KIRBY: I am -- I am -- there's a lot of things I'm not good at. One of them is predicting the future. What I'll tell you is that we're -- we're watching it very closely. We have been watching it very closely. The Iraqi security forces have been continuing to stiffen their defense around the city. We believe that they've done a good job with that. They'll continue to focus on it.


    Obviously, it's a -- it's a city of immense importance to them and to their government. It's clear they share the same sense of urgency about protecting the city, and so I think, you know, we're -- I can't predict anything one way or the other, other than to tell you what I can predict is we're going to continue to work with them and their defense -- their defenses of it.


    By the way, while reporters covering the Pentagon could and did ask questions about Iraq in the press briefing, for the second day in a row at the US State Dept briefing, no reporter could be bothered to make time for the topic.

    While the useless reporters covering State can't even pretend to be interested in Iraq, it's not that way at the Defense Dept or, for that matter, at the White House.

    Yesterday, the first questions Josh Earnest, White House spokesperson, faced were about Iraq.



    Q    Thanks, Josh.  The President in his “60 Minutes” interview last night, acknowledged that the United States underestimated what was happening with the Islamic State and also the Iraqi military’s ability to deal with it.  And I know that the President is reliant on the intelligence community and his advisors for those kinds of assessments, but I’m wondering if he sees himself as having any responsibility for that failure to connect the dots there or if he has a role in what happened there.


    MR. EARNEST:  Josh, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief, and he often talks about how he is the one that is ultimately responsible for protecting the national security interests of the United States of America all around the globe.  There is no question that he relies on important advice from the leaders in our military, from leaders in our diplomatic corps, and from leaders in our intelligence community.  He values the relationship and advice that he gets from leaders among all of those important segments of our government, and in fact, it’s only because of the strong, sound advice that he has received from members of the intelligence community that we have had some success early on in our efforts to combat the threat from ISIL.
    One of the things that we talked about earlier this summer is the efforts underway at the Pentagon to develop military options for the President, either in Iraq or in Syria.  And at that time, I talked about how it was important  -- or at that time, I talked about how military planners were relying on intelligence that was being collected and cultivated by our intelligence community to develop a set of targets on which the President could order military action. 
    The early reviews, the early assessments of those military operations indicate that the strikes were impactful and effective.  That’s a testament, first and foremost, to the skill and courage of our men and women in uniform, but it would not have been possible without the tremendous ability of members of our intelligence community.



    Q    And the President also discussed last night how the Islamic State group has become the more immediate threat even as the United States continues to wish to see Assad go.  I’m wondering if there is anything that the U.S. is actively doing at the moment to work to get Assad to go.


    MR. EARNEST:  Well, certainly our efforts to build up the moderate elements of the Syrian opposition will have a very negative effect on the Assad regime’s ability to hold on to power; that as the opposition in Syria is built up, it will succeed in providing a legitimate counterweight to the Assad government, with the ultimate goal of a diplomatic resolution of that situation.  That’s also something the President discussed in the “60 Minutes” interview over the weekend.

    There is not a military solution to the very grave problems that are plaguing Syria right now; that ultimately at the core is a political resolution as it relates to governing that country. And building up, fortifying and strengthening the capacity of moderate elements of the Syrian opposition will move us further in pursuit of that goal.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Barack's 'glorious' plan falls to earth"
    "revenge - look who got make overs"
    "Socialist Worker calls out the war on Iraq"
    "Selling war"
    "Expanding the latest wave of the Iraq War"
    "How The Green Party Blows It Again"
    "The gift of Barack Obama"
    "The deeply unpopular"
    "Lois Lerner says 'I'm not a crook'"
    "Alicia is a bitch"
    "The Mindy Project"
    "Pass the buck presidency"
    "THIS JUST IN! HE PASSES!"



    Pass the buck presidency

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

    FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O ENTERTAINED THESE REPORTERS LATE TONIGHT AS HE EXPLAINED HIS NEW POLICY WHILE SIPPING A SHIRLEY TEMPLE AND GETTING A PEDICURE.

    "THE BUCK GETS PASSED HERE,"  BARRY O DECLARED WAVING HIS ARM FRANTICALLY AND POINTING TO HIMSELF.

    "NOTHING IS EVER MY FAULT," HE CONTINUED.  "IT'S SO LIBERATING.  LIKE, THIS AFTERNOON, I TOOTED.  BUT I IMMEDIATELY HOLLERED AT NEW JAY" BARRY O THEN POINTED TO WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST WHO ROLLED HIS EYES "AND BEGAN ASKING NEW JAY WHY HE TOOTED.  'NEW JAY!' I YELLED, 'WHY DIDN'T YOU STEP OUTSIDE THE OVAL OFFICE TO TOOT?  YOU THINK WE'RE WANTING TO SMELL ALL THAT, NEW JAY? BECAUSE WE AREN'T!'"


    BARRY O THEN CLAPPED HIS HANDS AND GIGGLED.


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    Who was it that claimed Barack Obama played three dimensional chess?


    Whomever started that lie should step forward and take accountability for that outlandish claim.

    Iraq?  His 'plan' is falling apart for anyone who wants to pay attention.



    Lizzie Dearden (Irish Indpendent) reports:

    According to the Foundation for Relief and Reconciliation in the Middle East, Isil was approaching the Iraqi capital yesterday morning.
    "The Islamic State are now less than 2km away from entering Baghdad," a spokesperson said.
    "They said it could never happen and now it almost has. President Obama says he overestimated what the Iraqi Army could do. Well you only need to be here a very short while to know they can do very very little."



    B-b-b-ut the plan!  The plan to bomb from the air!  That plan was foolproof, right?


    Wrong.  We noted it would become normalized and it has.

    The effectiveness would never last for weeks.  It only had an element of surprise for so long.

    Kristina Wong (The Hill) reports:

    Islamic State in Iraq and Syria militants are adjusting to U.S. airstrikes, making it more difficult to target them, an Air Force general said Monday.
    ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria had previously traveled in columns of vehicles with flags, Air Force Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told reporters at a briefing Monday.
    "They are now dispersing themselves to allow themselves situations to be more survivable, if you will, which requires us to work harder to locate them, and then develop the situation to appropriately target them," Harrigian said.


    If only that could have been anticipated, if . . .

    Wait.  We did anticipate it and we noted it here.

    Is the US intelligence community really that stupid or is the person receiving the intel in daily briefings that struggles with comprehension?


    Dearden noted that Barack admitted to faulty intel.

    Wow.  So Barack might have overestimated the Iraqi military?

    The Shi'ite militia is part of the Iraqi forces -- remains part.  Nouri brought them in -- Tim Arango broke that story in the fall of 2013.

    There's been no effort by the new prime minister to address that even though these militias are seen as death squads -- by Sunnis, yes, but also by other Shi'ites.

    Did Barack miss that fact in an briefing as well?

    Realities like this matter.

    They matter in terms of what any campaign or plan can accomplish, yes.

    Ir matters for safety reasons, it also matters for financial reasons.  Kate Brannen (Foreign Policy) was noting last week that "$7 million to $10 million a day" was being spent by the Pentagon on Barack's 'plan' and that the figure was likely to rise and increase the Defense Dept's 2015 fiscal budget.  And, as Paul D. Shinkman (US News and World Reports) explains, Operation No Name still has no name and the Pentagon gets a bit testy when asked about that fact.


    When asked about facts, Barack Obama just gets confused.



    On Sunday's 60 Minutes, US President Barack Obama repeatedly demonstrated how little he understood of Iraq.  We focused on this section of the interview:

    President Barack Obama: Well, I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria. Essentially, what happened with ISIL was that you had al Qaeda in Iraq, which was a vicious group, but our Marines were able to quash with the help of Sunni tribes. They went back underground. But over the past couple of years, during the chaos of the Syrian civil war, where essentially you have huge swathes of the country that are completely ungoverned, they were able to reconstitute themselves and take advantage of that chaos, and attract foreign fighters who believed in their jihadist nonsense, and traveled everywhere from Europe to the United States to Australia to other parts of the Muslim world, converging on Syria. And so this became ground zero for jihadists around the world. And they have been very savvy in terms of their social media. In some cases, you have old remnants of Saddam Hussein's military that had been expunged from the Iraqi military, which gave them some traditional military capacity, and not just terrorist capacity. And this is one of the challenges that we are going to have generally, is where you have got states that are failing or in the midst of civil war, these kinds of organizations thrive. That is why it's so important for us to recognize part of our solution here is going to be military. We just have to push them back and shrink their space and go after their command-and-control and their capacity and their weapons and their fueling, and cut off their financing, and work to eliminate the flow of foreign fighters. But what we also have to do is, we have to come up with political solutions in Iraq and Syria in particular, but in the Middle East generally, that arrives at an accommodation between Sunni and Shia populations that right now are the biggest cause of conflict, not just in the Middle East, but in the world.


    In terms of facts, that's incorrect for a number of reasons including the Marines did not quash 'al Qaeda in Iraq.'
    Sahwa/Awakenings/Sons Of Iraq and Daughters Of Iraq turned the tide and did so because they were paid to.  
    Let's drop back to the April 8, 2008 snapshot.  And let's remember Barack had only been serving for three years as a US Senator at the time and had spent the previous year and 2008 campaigning so he missed a lot of hearings and the ones he showed up for in April of 2008?  He was late to them.  People like John Kerry and Joe Biden babied him, babied his little candy ass, let him show up late and immediately, even though it wasn't his turn and rules on seniority required he wait his term, would let him jump ahead of everyone so he could stumble through his questions -- with more unnatural pauses than Sandy Dennis managed in her entire acting career -- and then Barack would rush out of the hearing.  So he missed a lot, a whole lot.
    From the April 8, 2008 snapshot:

    Today The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour took their act on the road.  First stop, the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to be providing a status report on the Iraq War.  They didn't.  In fact, Petraeus made clear that the status report would come . . . next September.  When the results are this bad, you stall -- which is exactly what Petraeus did. 
    The most dramatic moment came as committee chair Carl Levin was questioning Petraeus and a man in the gallery began exclaiming "Bring them home!" repeatedly.  (He did so at least 16 times before he was escored out).  The most hilarious moment was hearing Petraeus explain that it's tough in the school yard and America needs to fork over their lunch money in Iraq to avoid getting beat up.  In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads.  These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts."  Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up. 
    How much lunch money is the US forking over?  Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars).  By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month.  $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost".  Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies.  What a proud moment for the country.
     I'm being kind right now and leaving it at that but we can quote people from Barack's administration and reveal not only how stupid and incorrect Barack's remarks were but how lunatic his supposed 'plan' is.  We'll probably save that for later this week.


     The White House had to announce that Barack's remarks about Clapper were not meant to imply that he no longer had faith in James I Lied To Congress Clapper.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Falluja still bombed, Barack's 'plan' still questi..."
    "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Now We Bomb Ok..."
    "Hejira"
    "MPs vote to start bombing Iraq (Judith Orr)"
    "Kat's Korner: Rhino does Carly on the cheap"
    " revenge returns"
    "The 'news'"
    "Bid The Good Wife farewell?"
    "Iraq"
    "The neoliberal attack on Detroit continues"
    "Madam Secretary take down"
    "If it's shoddy reporting, it's Huffington Post"
    "Carly and music"
    "The Simpsons"
    "Funniest thing of the weekend"

    "He'll put out"
    "THIS JUST IN! HE'S A BACKSEAT KIND OF BOY!"


  • Sunday, September 28, 2014

    He'll put out

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

    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WILL GO TO WAR BUT ONLY SO FAR.

    HE'S BEING CALLED THE OVER THE SWEATER PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO WAR BUT DC INSIDERS SWEAR THAT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE "NO ONE SPREADS LIKE BARRY!"


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    Let's hold on a second to describe the 'plan' for anyone not paying attention in the last weeks.  The US military will bomb all over Iraq (and now in Syria as well -- Syria is the new Laos) to 'defeat' the Islamic State -- a group of Sunni fundamentalists who have received some backing (in terms of concealment as well as in terms of aiding in violence) by some Iraqi Sunnis as a result of the oppression of the Sunni community in Iraq which includes but is not limited to, false imprisonment, arrests without warrants, arrests of known innocents (arrested because the police couldn't find the suspect so they arrested a mother, or a wife, or a child, or a . . .), torture and rape in Iraqi prisons, etc.

    Barack has repeatedly stated in public that Iraq requires a political solution.

    When he makes those statements, he's referring to the need for a government that is inclusive and represents all Iraqis.  He's basically trying to turn the clock back to 2010 when Iraqis had again (see the 2009 election results) expressed a growing belief in a national identity and a rejection of a country made up of warring sects.  Nouri al-Maliki (with the White House's backing) came close to destroying such a possibility.


    Nouri wanted a third term and Barack (wisely, in my opinion) worked to ensure that it did not happen.

    The whole point of that was so that Iraq could get a new prime minister, a new leader, so that people could have hope that maybe a new Iraq was possible.

    A hope like that doesn't survive months.

    It's either confirmed or it's a fleeting hope that quickly passes.

    Sometimes I get that feeling and I want to settle and raise a child up with somebody
    I get that strong long and then I want to settle and raise a child up with somebody
    But it passes like the summer
    I'm a wild seed again
    Let the wind carry me
    -- "Let The Wind Carry Me," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on Joni's For The Roses


    Passes like the summer.

    And what's happened in Iraq.

    Haider al-Abadi was named the new prime minister.

    Despite not having a Minister of Interior (over the federal police) or a Minister of Defense (over the military) in his Cabinet.

    Just like Nouri.

    Who went four years without filling those slots.  Yes, Americans being asked to support bombings today, Nouri went his entire term without a Minister (Secretary) of Defense.

    Unlike Nouri, Haider has nominated people for the posts.  The Parliament's just refused to confirm them.

    What else has Haider done?

    Well, since the start of this year, back in January, under Nouri's orders residential neighborhoods in Falluja have been bombed killing and wounding thousands of Iraqis.  (Falluja's a Sunni-dominated city.)

    Near the start of this month, Haider announced that the bombings were over, he had ordered it.

    But . . .

    the next day the bombings continued and they continue every day.

    So his words may be different than Nouri's words, but the results are the same.

    He has retained Nouri in the government.

    Even Barack didn't do that.  For all the (accurate) critiques of Barack failing to prosecute Bully Boy Bush and his cronies, Barack didn't make Bully Boy Bush Secretary of State, for example.

    But tyrant Nouri serves in Haider's government as one of three Vice Presidents (the other two are former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and former Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi).

    So Nouri's policies continue, the security ministries continue to remain leaderless and Nouri continues in the government.

    Where's the change?

    Hope's fleeing.  Joni sings "it passes like the summer."


    There are a few new freckles on your shoulders
    The hammock swings lower and touches the grass
    The apples are ripe and the corn is past
    Everyone says summer goes by so fast
    And we just got here
    -- "We Just Got Here," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her Have You Seen Me Lately?


    Joni sings it passes like summer, Carly sings summer goes by so fast.

    Friday, NINA reported 3 civilians are dead and nine more injured.  In addition, Iraqi Spring MC noted  Falluja General Hospital received the corpses of 2 children and eight more people who were injured from last night's bombings of the residential neighborhoods.

    And how were Friday prayers in Anbar celebrated?  With more civilian bombings.


    NINA reports:

    Chairman of Anbar provincial Council Sabah Karhot called army troops to focus on the bombing of the IS sites and not targeting residential areas.
    Head of the Council Karhot told the National Iraqi News Agency / Nina / that the city of Fallujah exposed to shelling of rockets and explosive barrels that claims the lives of many innocent civilians.
    The city of Fallujah exposed, daily, to the bombing of the explosive barrels and mortar shells and rockets, and about 12 civilians were killed and injured in today's bombing, which targeted residential neighborhoods in Fallujah. 



    And NINA notes a Friday Mosul bombing by US war planes killed 4 civilians.

    So is Haider al-Abadi a liar or powerless?

    A number of people are saying powerless and noting articles like this one at Kitabat which maintains that Nouri is refusing to leave the palace he's lived in since 2006, the housing of the prime minister.  And that even high ranking members of Dawa (Nouri's political party) attempting or persuade Nouri that he must leave and allow al-Abadi to move in have failed.

    An image is taking hold.  I'm not surprised.

    Right now there's a call on Arabic social media for a massive protest in Baghdad on September 30th against Haider al-Abadi.  If it is large, this will not help his image one bit.

    The window for Haider to make a difference, to show he was different from Nouri, is closing.


    Who will they look to
    So innocent they don't know
    Life, life isn't always fair
    There's always someone who cares
    Who will they look to
    In whose hands will their future lie
    Whose going to tell them stand up again
    Why not, why not give them one more try
    Who will they look to
    -- "Who Will They Look To," written by Nickolas Ashford and Valerie Simpson, first appears on Ashford & Simpson's Street Opera



    The White House spent all these weeks shoring up foreign support for bombings and they did nothing to push on the political scene.

    So it's a failure in the same way Bully Boy Bush's 'surge' is a failure.




    RECOMMENDED: "Kat's Korner: Rhino does Carly on the cheap"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Blowing it in Iraq again"
    "It's not news"
    "What a strange (TV) trip"
    "Denzel got old, maybe that's the real Equalizer?"
    "Anita Baker and Heart"
    "If we all did one errand a week on foot . . ."
    "Debbie Washerwoman Schultz please shut the f**k up"
    "Death of a real hero"
    "CheEse dip made simple in the Kitchen"
    "Yo, bimbos of Ms., why the silence?"
    "revenge is coming (sunday on abc)"
    "Come get your prize"
    "THIS JUST IN! HE HAS AN IMAGE!"

  • Friday, September 26, 2014

    Come get your prize

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

    HE'S A FAILURE AS A WAR PRESIDENT AND, THE ECONOMIST REMINDS, HE'S A FAILURE ON THE ECONOMY.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF, BARRY O INSISTED, "IT'S GOOD TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION AND I HAVE MADE AN IMPRESSION.  I'VE LEFT MY IMPRINT.  ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY. KIND OF LIKE URINE STAINS.  I'M THE OLD CAT TOO BLIND TO GO IN THE URINE BOX THAT YOU PUT UP WITH FOR A YEAR OR SO BECAUSE YOU KNOW HE'LL BE GONE SOON."

    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    If you want to know how poorly the US efforts at diplomacy are, you need look no further than press briefings.

    The State Dept's "daily press briefing"?  They haven't done one since September 19th.



    Q: Since the -- since the strikes began a few days ago in Syria, have you seen any evidence of Assad forces taking any ground that was previously held by ISIS? And the corollary to that, in Iraq, have -- to what extent has the Peshmerga or the Iraqi forces been able to retake territory because of American airstrikes? If you could just update us on that situation, as well.

    REAR ADM. KIRBY: I haven't seen any movement by Assad regime forces to move into facilities or infrastructure that we've hit. We've also seen -- not seen a lot of -- to be quite honest, haven't seen much in terms of reaction by ISIL inside Syria as a result of these attacks. In other words, were not seeing a lot of movement or major muscle movement changes by them in just the last couple of days.

    In Iraq, the -- I could point to the preservation of Haditha Dam. I could point to their ability to work with Kurds, to retake the Mosul Dam facility. I can point to the town of Amerli, which we prevented with them a humanitarian disaster. We could go on and on and on.

    I would also note -- and this gets forgotten a little bit -- that Baghdad is still relatively secure. I mean, there's been a couple of minor IED attacks inside Baghdad, but the ISF, the Iraqi Security Forces, in and around the capital are still defending the capital. And it's not like ISIL hasn't posed a threat there. You may have noticed that some of the strikes that we've taken lately in the last week or so have been south and southwest of Baghdad, because we know they continue to threaten the capital.




    That is from a press briefing today.  But it's the Pentagon's press briefing.  Even though the State Dept can't or won't do press briefings so far this week, the Pentagon can.

    I guess when you do nothing, you have nothing to talk about?


    Does it bother anyone?

    And does anyone have a memory or have we all erased our brains?

    The US government was supposed to go heavy on diplomacy before.

    It was 2007.

    Bully Boy Bush called for a 'surge' in the number of US troops.

    Anyone remember why?

    This was, the White House insisted, to give the Iraqi officials time to work on political solutions.  And the US was going to help.

    But all the US government has ever done is supply weapons and utilize the weapons and stir up the violence.

    And, just as back then, no one wanted to point out that while the military was doing their part of the surge, the US' diplomatic effort was half-hearted and a non-starter.

    As it was then, so it is now.

    It's not as if Iraq is dealing with only one political crisis, it's multiple crises.  On today's Fresh Air (NPR -- link is audio and text), Dexter Filkins discussed Iraq with Terry Gross:


    GROSS: This is FRESH AIR and if you're just joining us, my guest is Dexter Filkins. He's a writer for The New Yorker. He covered the Iraq war for The New York Times, won several awards for doing that. He's covered the whole region for many years. He just went to Kurdistan in the north of Iraq from a period of June through August. He made two trips during that period for a total of about a month's time. And now he has a piece in The New Yorker called "The Fight Of Their Lives: The White House Wants The Kurds To Help Save Iraq From ISIS, The Kurds May Be More Interested In Breaking Away." That's the title and subtitle of the piece.
    So why did you want to go to Kurdistan for this piece that you just wrote?


    FILKINS: Well the - you know, the Kurds are - I mean, when everybody looks at Iraq including me and you just say Iraq, what do you think of? I mean, you think of chaos, and car bombs, and bloodshed, and political strife and stalemate and everything else. And when you go to Kurdistan, this small corner of Iraq, there's nothing - it's nothing like that. And it really struck me when I was there writing the piece earlier this year when I was there doing a piece on Maliki in Baghdad and I was in Baghdad and I wanted to go to Kurdistan. And I had been in Baghdad for about three weeks - and Baghdad in 2014 looks pretty much the way it did in 2004. It's - despite the fact that the Iraqi government is pumping enormous amounts of oil and making tons of money, they're the second-largest producer in OPEC. We're talking tens of billions of dollars, $85 billion a year. There's just not much evidence of that oil money being spent and I think frankly, it's because a lot of it's being stolen. But, it's not a happy story - but, Baghdad's a wreck. I mean, it looks pretty much the way it did during the war.
    And then I got on a plane and I flew to Erbil, which is the capital of Kurdistan. And it's like - you know, you feel like Dorothy (laughter) and it's amazing. You know, there's a Jaguar dealership in Erbil and there's sushi restaurant and there's dance clubs. And I remember one night I'd been out of town and I drove back in at 3 a.m. and I found a liquor store open and bought a six-pack of beer at 3 o'clock in the morning in the Middle East. I mean, that's impossible anywhere for a thousand miles. So it's such a shock when you see it. You think, oh, my God, I can't believe I'm still in Iraq. And in a way - and really that's what the story's about - in a way, it's not part of Iraq, not anymore.


    GROSS: And they don't want to be part of Iraq anymore.



    FILKINS: No, I mean, sort of technically - technically they're part of Iraq, but, you know, they don't want to be and, you know, a de facto way, in a very real way, they're not, they're not part of Iraq. I mean, they're pulling away. And I think they want to make it official and I think probably - I mean, you can never foretell the future in that part of the world - but probably it will be independent, I think, sooner rather than later, although it's hard to tell exactly when.


    There are so many problems in Iraq, so many crises, destroying unity and what's the new prime minister doing?


    While he's unable to build political unity at this time,   Haider al-Abadi, is willing to make waves internationally.  Kristina Fernandez (China Topix) reports he declared today that Iraq had "credible intelligence" that the Islamic State was plotting an attack on the subway systems in Paris and NYC.

    He insisted the information was reliable because it had come from suspects in Iraqi custody.

    Huh?

    The Iraq interrogations are known as torture sessions -- they even killed a bodyguard of then-Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi during one of them.

    So, at best, whatever al-Abadi thinks or thought he has was most likely the product of torture.

    Terry Atlas and Angela Greiling Keane (Bloomberg News) quote White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden declaring, "We have not confirmed such a plot, and would have to review any information from our Iraqi partners before making further determinations.  We take any threat seriously and always work to corroborate information we receive from our partners. We're obviously very focused on the issue of foreign fighters."  The State Dept's Marie Harf went on CNN and suggested maybe it was true.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "The failures of the press, the failures of the Whi..."
    "RT and boxers"
    "Greenwald"
    "9th Circuit Shows Leadership"
    "Ms and Matthew"
    "The debut of How To Get Away With Murder"
    "scandal's back"
    "How To Get Away With Murder"
    "Holder's out"
    "Ethan Hawkes a new movie"
    "Barbra"
    "Bye, bye Holder"
    "THIS JUST IN! HOLDER'S OUT! OVER A CRAWLER!"


  • Thursday, September 25, 2014

    Bye, bye Holder

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


    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THIS AFTERNOON WAS ALL SET FOR A CRAWLER BUT AS HE MOSIED OVER TO THE FOOD TABLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER HAD ALREADY GRABBED IT AND WAS CHEWING AWAY.

    "DARN IT!" BARRY O EXCLAIMED.  "DARN IT ALL TO HECK!  I AM SO TIRED OF BEING DISRESPECTED!  I AM SO SICK OF IT!  YOU ARE FIRED!"

    "ME?" ASKED HOLDER.

    "YOU! GET OUT!"



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    I don't understand how we can be so stupid to think these 'precision' bombings are accomplishing thing.  They're not.

    I don't favor US boots on the ground.  But if Barack was announcing that the boots on the ground -- which already there and, yes, already engaged in combat -- if he were announcing/admitting that and coming up with someway to use them, it wouldn't be a plan I'd back but I wouldn't dispute that it was a plan.

    What Barack's doing is nonsense on every level.

    If you want the US to 'defeat' the Islamic State militarily (I don't think that's possible), then you're going to have to do something more than selective bombing.

    Let's stop being stupid about that at least.

    I don't believe there is a military answer.  I believe that bombing is just going to breed more terrorism.  I believe a number of Islamic State men who have been killed (some of who were Islamic State and some of whom were not) have loved ones they've left behind and I don't believe that the loved ones are saying, "Thank goodness he got killed!"  I think resentments and anger are being bred by Barack's actions.

    I also think civilians are being put at risk.  Some are being killed and there's no point in kidding around about that.  There's never been a series of ongoing strikes anywhere that didn't result in the death of at least a few civilians -- which is why terms like "collateral damage" were invented in the first place.

    So what's the solution.

    For years now, with the prison breaks in Iraq and the prisoners who don't get recaptured -- and most don't -- we've repeatedly pointed out here that the escapees are able to blend and elude capture because the communities are sympathetic.

    It's not, "Oh, you're a Sunni?  I'm a Sunni too!  I won't rat you out to the police for that reason!"

    The sympathy comes from the fact that, under thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Sunni community was targeted.  Sunnis were taken away, many times without arrest warrants only to vanish into the jails and prisons of Iraq -- jails and prisons infamous -- even post-Saddam Hussein -- for torture and abuse.

    Add in that not only were Sunni suspects arrested but so were relatives of suspects.

    The Iraqi forces show up at a home looking for 28-year-old Ali Hammadi.  Ali's not home.  But his wife is.  Or his dad.  Or his mom.  Or his grandparents or maybe even a child.  There was a protest this week in Iraq calling for the Sunni children to be released from Iraq's prisons and jails.

    That may shock you.  It shouldn't.

    The US government instituted this practice in the early years of the Iraq War -- showing far less ethics than even the mob.  And Nouri carried it over.  If he couldn't get you, he'd arrest one of your relatives.  No arrest warrant for them, maybe no hearing for them, and they disappear into Iraq's overpopulated jails and prisons.

    And that's why many Sunnis don't give a damn when there's a prison escape.  That's why their attitude is, "Good."  Too many of them have family members or friends who have been wrongly imprisoned.

    This and other mistreatment is why some Sunnis join the Islamic State, join with the Islamic State in actions (worded that way because they assist in actions but do not join the Islamic State) and/or look the other way when they might otherwise alert authorities to suspicious persons.





    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
    "Where is Nouri?"
  • "Iraq"
    "the con game"
    "Black-ish"
    "Keeping it real and keeping it short"
    "Better renounce your Democratic Party membership"
    "CD I most wanted to replace"
    "Beef of the week"
    "Reaction to The Mindy Project"
    "It's not personal"
    "THIS JUST IN! HE JUST DOESN'T LIKE 'EM!"