Sunday, August 09, 2015

Cheryl remembers well

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

CRANKY CLINTON'S LOYAL SERVANT CHERYL MILLS PROVES YET AGAIN TO BE CRANKY'S DEVOTED LOVE SLAVE WHEN, ORDERED BY A COURT TO CERTIFY SHE HAD TURNED OVER ALL E-MAILS, INSTEAD REPLIES THROUGH HER ATTORNEY THAT SHE WILL BE DELETING THEM.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CHERYL INSISTS THEY ARE NOT WORK RELATED AND FEATURE PHOTOS OF CRANKY TOPLESS WITH TASSLES AS WELL AS IN VARIOUS BONDAGE OUTFITS.

"IT'S THE CRANKY I KNEW," CHERYL INSISTS, "THE ONE I KNEW REALLY, REALLY WELL.  AND I WILL DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT HER."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Moving over to activism, protests continue in Iraq.  As with last weekend, protests continued.  Friday, Alsumaria reported that Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr issued   instructions Thursday for his followers which included that they take part in peaceful actions and not damage private property, that they not wear military uniforms while protesting and that they not carry photos/placards/banners with photos of any political or religious official.







    • In the image above, the top right is Moqtada al-Sadr and below him is Ammar al-Hakim.  Ammar is the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq.  If he's now supporting the protesters, that would be a big switch from his remarks earlier this week.


    From Thursday:


     Last weekend saw protests across Iraq.  Abdul Latif al-Saadoun (MEM) observes today:


    "If we cannot provide enough electric power for the Iraqis, why don't the families buy private generators?" asked an Iraqi official during a recent press interview. It was similar to the quotation misattributed to French Queen Marie Antoinette two hundred years ago; if the people don't have bread, "Then let them eat cake."
    Again, like the French, the Iraqis revolted by igniting the uprising in Basra. This spread around the country and this time the Iraqi leaders could not blame the Yazidis, which they had done in the past when there was activity in Iraq's western cities. Those who gathered in Iraq's Tahrir and other Squares did not belong to a specific sect, race or party. They gathered as Iraqis and expressed their anger at their rulers who have subjected them to decades of failure, with neither justice nor anything as mundane as new building projects. Instead, the leaders conspired in the name of religion to loot the country's wealth and used its resources to satisfy their evil desires and feed their obsession for money and power.

    al-Saadoun goes on to note how the Iraqi government went on to blame the Islamic State with Ammar al-Hakim (leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) insisting that the protesters themselves were members of the Islamic State.  How very sad events have been for al-Hakim.  His relationship with the US has soured.  He's not moved forward or higher in the political hierarchy of Iraq.  And now he's attacking the people in a manner that recalls Nouri al-Maliki's ridiculous attacks on the protesters.



    So if Ammar is now supporting the protesters, that would actually be major news.

    Regardless of whether Ammar supports them or not, the protesters were out in full force:






























    • The protests address corruption and lack of services.


    For massive protests, there had to be that and more.  The more for many Sunnis include the continued targeting of the Sunni population.



















    • Nothing has changed under Haider's leadership.

    He is, thus far, an abject failure.





    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Planned Parenthood"
    "Senator Schumer's position on the Iran deal"
    "Protests in Iraq"
    "Curse of Chuckie"
    "Sense8"
    "Hillary's lost her mind"
    "Oh right because the only reason I listened to you before we broke up was for sex."
    "The sexless Tom Cruise"
    "Extant (Molly chooses peace, everyone else goes for war)"
    "If you could not die . . ."
    "The stink rising off Robert Fantina"
    "Is Prince a f**king idiot again?"
    "Extant (Is John dead?)"
    "Iraq on Twitter"
    "Only some mosques matter?"
    "Jeb Bush is Ross?"
    "This means what?"
    "What they'll spend on, what they won't"
    "Yes, but when?"
    "do shut up"
    "As Doris Day sang . . ."
    "So little concern for civilian deaths"
    "Protests in Iraq"
    "THIS JUST IN! HE'LL ALWAYS HAVE DAYTONA IN MARCH!"
    "The memories"




    Posted by at No comments:

    Thursday, August 06, 2015

    The memories

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


    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS BEEN GRADED AN "ABJECT FAILURE."

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O DISMISSED THE GRADE INSISTING, "I ALREADY HAD SPRING BREAK.  THEY CAN'T TAKE THAT FROM ME!"





    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    Dripping with desperation, US President Barack Obama attempted to sell his proposed deal with Iraq today.

    Instead of explaining what was in the deal and how this would be good for the United States and the world, Barack elected to traffic in fear and bitchery.

    The Hindu reports:

     President Barack Obama warned Congress that rejecting the nuclear agreement with Iran would be the worst mistake since the invasion of Iraq and would lead to "another war" in the Middle East.


    Fear and lies, it was 2002 all over again.

    Agree with me, he insisted, or there will be war.

    Trust me, he argued, and that what I say is true because, after all, I just said it.

    He didn't prove anything and basic fact checks of his statements tended to expose one lie after another.

    For example, David Swanson's analysis of the speech includes:




    “This deal is not just the best choice among alternatives—this is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever.” —President Obama
    Except, of course, for the Nonproliferation Treaty! if its parties were to comply with it. (I'm looking at you, President Obama.)
    The President's tweets -- tweeted by someone other than the President of course -- came during a speech he gave at American University, from which a transcript will likely be posted on the White House website.
    Obama, in truth, has zero evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon. Zero. None. The claim that he halted a nuclear weapons program in Iran is outrageous -- as crazy as Dick Cheney's claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
    Obama might claim he was only suggesting he'd halted a nuclear ENERGY program, but the reader who would put that interpretation on his statement, and combine it with an understanding that Iran's program has been exclusively for energy, has got to be rare, given the propaganda being pushed by Obama, his supporters, and his opponents.


    Remarkably, neither the advocates of war, nor the momentary fans of diplomacy, will point out that Iran has never threatened the United States and has no nuclear weapons program.



    Yes, it was 2002 all over again as Barack, like Bully Boy Bush before him, used the threat of wars to try to push through what he wanted.  Fear mongering.  FITS News observes:
    “I know it’s easy to play on people’s fears, to magnify threats … but none of these arguments hold up,” Obama said during an address at American University.
    Really?  All we know is Iran’s ruler – Hassan Rouhani – referred to the deal Obama negotiated as an “answered prayer.”  That can’t be good.
    More to the point: In the same speech Obama blasted critics for “playing on people’s fears,” he engaged in … wait for it … the exact same fearmongering.
    “Let’s not mince words,” Obama said.  “The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.  Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”
     

    It was Bully Boy Bush who helped hardened divisions in the United States with 'you're either with us or against us' nonsense which failed to recognize that people could have honest disagreements.

    Barack was supposed to usher in change.

    He was going to do so much for the public dialogue.

    He would be able to do this, you may remember, because he was not of the baby boom.  (He actually is by a baby boomer by most definitions of the generation.)

    He would be able to bridge the divide, dismiss the "Tom Hayden Democrats," and allow for better dialogue.

    That was the argument.

    Didn't hold up, but that was the argument.


    Kevin Liptak (CNN) points out, "He declared that lawmakers risk damaging American credibility if they vote to scuttle the deal and equated them with those who pushed for war with Iraq -- and with the mullahs in Iran."


    So if you opposed the deal, you are in league with the mullahs?

    And the Legion of Doom as well?

    Why not include them because this speech was the most idiotic political speech since Lois Griffin ran for mayor of Quahog on Family Guy (and, using Brian's advice, Lois decided to repeatedly invoke 9/11) and gave speeches while seeking the office and after being elected.

    Attempting to persuade citizens to support a tax hike, Lois declares at one point, "We have intelligence that suggests that Hitler is plotting with -- with the Legion of Doom to assassinate Jesus using the lake as a base."

    That assertion would have fit right in with the ones Barack made today.

    Meanwhile, Barack worked overtime to use Iraq to justify his deal with Iran.

    Dan De Luce and John Hudson (Foreign Policy) note:

    Obama’s use of the Iraq War as a political cudgel against opponents of the deal carries clear risks for the president. Obama has consistently taken public credit for bringing the long and deeply unpopular Iraq War to what he has called a responsible end, but the Iraqi Army disintegrated last year in the face of the Islamic State, and the militants have conquered vast swaths of the country. Many critics — including prominent Democrats and an array of current and retired senior military commanders — say that Obama’s rush to withdraw American forces helped pave the way for the rise of the Islamic State.
    In recent months, Obama has been forced to send roughly 3,000 U.S. troops to train Iraqi forces and tribal fighters to take on the militant group. The Pentagon has also spent almost one full year bombing Islamic State targets in both Iraq and Syria.



    Barack's sudden concern over those who supported the Iraq War has never resulted in a litmus test for his own Cabinet.  Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many others who supported the Iraq War have been offered posts by Barack but those who opposed the war -- US House Rep Maxine Waters, Dennis Kuccinich, etc -- have not been offered Cabinet posts.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Barack and the White House lies"
    "Those debates"
    "Cry baby Gerry Connolly"
    "Oh, Shonda, spare the nonsense"
    "the problem is whoopi"
    "If only . . ."
    "More legal trouble for Hillary The Crook"
    "The FBI is probing who?"
    "How much mud is she willing to wade through?"
    "That's what War Hawks do"
    "Iraq's forgotten Christians"
    "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S OFF!"
    "The political derby"





    Posted by at No comments:

    Tuesday, August 04, 2015

    The political derby

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


    CRANKY CLINTON IS DROPPING IN THE POLLS AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE FIND HER HARD TO RELATE TO.

    THE LATEST GROUP TO HAVE A PROBLEM RELATING TO CRANKY?

    WHITE WOMEN.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY SNORTED, "JEALOUS HEFFERS! THE OTHER GIRLS NEVER LIKED ME.  MY BEAUTY, SMARTS AND NATURAL MODESTY AND GRACE WAS ALWAYS TOO MUCH FOR THEM.  WHITE WOMEN?  WHO NEEDS THEM.  I'LL WIN THE ELECTION WITHOUT 'EM.  WATCH AND SEE."

    WITH THAT CRANKY AGAIN SNORTED BEFORE GALLOPING AWAY.


     FROM THE TCI WIRE:





    Starting with the US presidential race (yes, the election does not take place until November 2016),
    Stephen Zunes (at National Catholic Reporter) notes Hillary Clinton's still unexplained and unapologized for 2002 vote in support of war on Iraq:


     Clinton is the only one of the five major announced candidates for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination who supported that illegal and unnecessary war, which not only resulted in 4,500 American deaths and thousands more permanently disabled, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, the destabilization of the region with the rise of ISIS, and a dramatic increase in the federal deficit resulting in major cutbacks to important social programs.
    Her defenders have characterized her vote as a "mistake." However, it would have been a mistake only if she had pushed the "aye" button when she had meant to push the "nay" button. It was quite deliberate and the implications still raise serious questions.

    Pope John Paul II and the National Council of Catholic Bishops, along with the leadership of virtually every major mainline U.S. Protestant denomination, came out in opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Christian groups that supported Bush's call for war were essentially restricted to right-wing fundamentalists, thereby raising some serious questions as to where Clinton is coming from theologically.


    For the record, saying it was a "mistake" is not an apology.  Yes, Hillary again said that last May.  To be clear, when it turned out Bill Clinton did have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and Hillary was throwing that lamp, Bill calling it a "mistake" would not have been seen by Hillary as an apology.  Nor should the country, the world, accept her use of the word "mistake" as an apology for voting for war on Iraq.


    Though her negatives are increasing as she attempts to make a case for why she should be the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nominee, some see her as presidential.  For example, H.A. Goodman (The Hill) makes a case that Hillary is very presidential . . . along the lines of Richard Nixon:

    Regarding a penchant for hiding behind words and definitions, Clinton and Nixon share many of the same qualities. Like good attorneys, the words of both place great emphasis on technical legal definitions, rather than what the average American would describe as a lack of judgement. While Nixon's focus on "political containment" cost him the White House, a similar type of political containment could have motivated Clinton to engage in using a private server exclusively.
    In 2015, Americans can access the Nixon Library and listen to "a portion of the approximately 60 hours of tape subpoenaed by the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (WSPF)." However, there will always be 18.5 minutes of missing tape, destroyed by someone within Nixon's administration, containing "incriminating evidence" that nobody will ever be able to hear. Clinton and her team unilaterally deleted 31,830 emails, without any oversight, and with the expectation that Americans simply trust that these emails never contained any classified or incriminating data. Basic logic dictates that if the recent investigation of four out of just 40 Clinton emails has already resulted in security failures, there's a good chance that more classified information and security breaches will be found within the 60,000 other emails.
    Like Nixon, Clinton’s "political containment" could lead to an endless legal conundrum, culminating in a political figure being forced to acknowledge that questionable behavior wasn't done in the name of American interest, but rather personal interest. Ultimately, Democrats can't survive in 2016 with potentially classified emails floating around days before Election Day. Since more than 30,000 of her deleted emails are deleted -- but not gone, and still recoverable -- this aspect of the controversy adds an even greater element of uncertainty. "Political containment" is a dangerous thing in today's networked world, or as Clinton calls it, opting for "convenience."



    Last week, the US State Dept released another trove of e-mails to and from Hillary when she was Secretary of State.  The release included an e-mail exchange with failed US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill in which Hill called the Iraqi people "truly a collective pain in the neck."


    The true pain in the neck is people like Chris Hill.

    Hill's reign was short.  After there was denying how badly he had bungled his mission, US President Barack Obama asked Hill for his resignation yet today, having secured a post at the University of Denver, Hill presents himself as an expert on Iraq.


    As we noted in the July 25th snapshot, bombing is not helping Iraq and Iraq is not an empty field but instead a populated country with over 30 million people.  Barack's bombing campaign means bombs are falling on people.

    If that's confusing to you, Airwars maintains US-led strikes on Iraq and Syria have killed between 489 and 1,247 civilians. Cora Currier (The Intercept) reminds, "Next Saturday marks the first anniversary of the United States’ bombing campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq. Over the past year, a U.S.-led coalition including Canada, France, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and other European and Gulf states has carried out over 5,800 airstrikes against the group in Iraq and Syria."


    In related news, Samuel Oakford (Vice News) reports, "The UN said Monday that it is looking into reports that as many as 40 civilians were killed in an airstrike near Ramadi last Friday, an incident that could be the latest deadly attack to hit innocent bystanders in the campaign by the Iraqi government and a US-led coalition against the self-styled Islamic State (IS)."

    Killing people is big business, as Kate Brannen (Daily Beast) explains:

     The war against ISIS isn’t going so great, with the self-appointed terror group standing up to a year of U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.
    But that hasn’t kept defense contractors from doing rather well amidst the fighting. Lockheed Martin has received orders for thousands of more Hellfire missiles. AM General is busy supplying Iraq with 160 American-built Humvee vehicles, while General Dynamics is selling the country millions of dollars worth of tank ammunition.

    SOS International, a family-owned business whose corporate headquarters are located in New York City, is one of the biggest players on the ground in Iraq, employing the most Americans in the country after the U.S. Embassy. On the company’s board of advisors: former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz—considered to be one of the architects of the invasion of Iraq—and Paul Butler, a former special assistant to Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.







    RECOMMENDED: "Turkey attacks Kurds after Isis assault"
    "Ignoring the obvious (corruption, Sinjar, bombings..."
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Protests, bombings, dead civilians, it's Iraq"
    "Hejira"
    "At least Hillary didn't put them in her underwear (as far as we know)"
    "Hillary's scandal is not going away"
    "Time for the Justice Department to make an announcement"
    "Missed the Hillary Memo"
    "She's very unfavorable"
    "Hillary gets nailed"
    "stupid idiot marian fang"
    "Hillary is imploding"
    "David Brock is peeing his bvds"
    "Where is anything worth watching?"



    "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY'S FAN CLUB GETS UGLY!"
    "Hillary lovers attack the press"



    • Posted by at No comments:

    Wednesday, July 29, 2015

    Hillary lovers attack the press


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


    DAVID BROCK'S BOY TOY ERIC BOEHLERT IS SCREAMING FOR A FIRING.

    WHY?

    BECAUSE THE TOY HOOKER WANTS TO SILENCE CRITICISM OF HILLARY CLINTON.

    THE NEW YORK TIMES REALLY DID NOT GET A STORY WRONG (THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED TONIGHT AT THE COMMON ILLS IN FULL -- IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW IN "You've got some really strange and creepy heroes" AND "Mediaite's Posse Don't Do Media Criticism") -- BUT THE PAPER DID A STORY THAT DAVID BROCK AND HIS HANG DOWN ERIC BOEHLERT DID NOT LIKE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT GLOWING PRAISE OF CRANKY CLINTON.

    SO THEY'RE SCREAMING FOR A FIRING SO THAT THEY CAN HANG A CORPSE AND SCARE ALL THE OTHER JOURNALISTS AWAY.

    THEY ARE FASCISTS AND THEY ARE LIARS.

    NEVER FORGET THAT DAVID BROCK -- DRUG ADDICT AND PROSTITUTE USER -- CAME TO FAME BY LYING ABOUT ANITA HILL TO PROTECT CLARENCE THOMAS.

    THAT'S ALL DAVID BROCK KNOWS HOW TO DO: LIE.


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:





    Moving from the Congress to those who want to be president, the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee will be decided by voters in early to mid 2016.  The declared candidates so far are (in alphabetical order): Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Robby Wells and Willie Wilson.


    CNN notes of one, "Chafee has struggled to make much traction in the Democratic presidential race. A recent CNN/ORC Poll showed less than 1 percent of democrats surveyed backed Chafee, compared to 57 percent for Clinton."

    Chafee was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the authorization for the Iraq War in 2002.  He then became an independent and is now a Democrat.  Chafee is stressing his vote with regards to press favorite Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq War.  David Cook (Christian Science Monitor) covers a Christian Science Monitor breakfast and neglects to record the menu but does note that Chafee stressed the 2002 Iraq War vote:

    "I did my homework, I looked carefully to see if there were weapons of mass destruction. I didn't see it," he said. Clinton has said since that her Iraq War vote was a mistake. 
    When asked about polls showing voter concerns about Clinton’s honesty and credibility, Chafee said she had suffered “a lot of self-inflicted wounds, unfortunately.” But, he added, after the primary season is over, he and the other Democratic candidates would “certainly unite as Democrats to win in 2016.”


    Jonathan Easley (The Hill) also covers Chafee's breakfast remarks and includes this:

    “I have a lot of work to do,” Chafee said. “The reality is that secretary Clinton has a huge head start with endorsements and money and the rest of us are scrambling. But I think I have the vision, ethical standards and ideas. There’s still more to be don on fundraising and organization, but it doesn’t discount what I bring to the table.”



    Hillary, of course, refuses to discuss Iraq.

    She pretends a brief aside in her ghost written book from 2014 'addressed' and 'ended' the issue.  David Lightman (McClatchy Newspapers) reminds:

     Clinton said last year she regretted her vote. “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple,” she said in her book, “Hard Choices.”




    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article29110669.html#storylink=cpy


    And she does that to the idiotic raves of Maggie Haberman, the New York Times reporter or 'reporter' who is making a career this year of minimizing and justifying Hillary's actions.

    Haberman's coverage -- including her Tweets -- border on soft core porn -- you picture her as Brian De Palma's camera for the locker room scene in Carrie before Sissy Spacek gets her period -- was of course ignored by David Brock and other partisan hacks and whores last week as they rushed to insist the New York Times was always unfair to their  crush.



    Possibly due to the way the Iraq War vote continues to haunt her, Hillary appears unable to take firm positions today.  Akilah Johnson (Boston Globe) reports on the town hall Hillary held today:
    Bruce Blodgett, a software developer and conservative from Amherst, asked for a "yes or no" answer to whether Clinton "as president" would support the proposed pipeline -- an $8 billion project abhorred by environmentalists -- that would transport oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico.
    Clinton sidestepped the question, saying: "This is President Obama's decision. If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question."


    Dan Merica and Jeff Zeleny (CNN) report Blodgett's reaction to Hillary's response, "I thought she avoided the question completely. Her excuse was she didn't want to step on President Obama while he was still in office.  I just thought that was a very weak answer. I just wanted to know where she stands on it one way or another."

    Nancy Pelosi infamously argued that the Congress had to first pass ObamaCare to then figure out what ObamaCare would do ("We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it").  Hillary's taking that even further.  You have to first vote her president and then, after she's in office, she'll decide where she stands on an issue.

    This refusal to press a candidate who goes around repeatedly saying "when I become president" is appalling.

    She needs to be asked about Iraq repeatedly.

    The Iraq War continues to this day.

    She helped kick it off with her 2002 vote and her championing of the illegal war once it started.

    She only (semi) turned on it after the public had.

    US troops are being sent back into Iraq in a steady drip today.  US pilots fly combat missions over Iraq today.  The Iraqi government, instead of coming up with a political solution to the country's problems, remains in gridlock.

    Exactly how does Hillary plan to address any of this if elected president?

    Hillary and her cult -- which includes the Times' Maggie Haberman -- are perfectly happy to take the position that Hillary doesn't have to answer to any of that unless "it's undecided when I become president."

    Meanwhile, last week Ben Jacobs (Guardian) reported:


    In Iowa on Thursday, in response to a question from the Guardian about whether the White House should take further steps towards arming Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq, the former Maryland governor and 2016 Democratic candidate said: “Probably, yes.”
    The Obama administration has long hesitated over directly arming Kurdish militias in the north of Iraq, for fear of further aggravating sectarian tensions.
    [. . .]

    Doug Wilson, a top foreign policy adviser to O’Malley, made clear that the candidate “was not unilaterally proposing that we step up additional arms to the Kurds”. Instead, Wilson said, O’Malley would only do so “if it was determined by the US military that it was appropriate to up the arms to the Kurds”.


    Where does Hillary stand on that question?

    Oh, that's right, Maggie Haberman thinks Hillary said all she needs to via that ghost-written 2014 book.




    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
    "Isakson Pays Tribute to Georgia Marine Slain in Ch..."
    "US government supports child soldiers in Iraq"
    "Tom Brady"
    "The Wiz"
    "Why is Barack in Kenya?"
    "Does it ever end?"
    "Ant Man"
    "third term barack?"
    "I don't like fear tactics"
    "Hillary doesn't know where she stands"
    "Investigate Hillary's e-mails"
    "John Kerry: Aging Drama Queen"
    "THIS JUST IN! THAT AND THE VOTERS!"
    "He forgot the voters (again)"








    Posted by at No comments:

    Tuesday, July 28, 2015

    He forgot the voters (again)

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


    THE ONLY THING, HE INSISTED, BARRING HIM WAS THE CONSTITUTION.

    YEAH THAT.

    AND THE AMERICANS WHO WOULD RAIL AGAINST ANY POMPOUS PRICK WHO THOUGHT HE COULD RUN FOR A THIRD TERM.



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    We devoted Saturday's snapshot to the Turkish government's efforts to use war against the Islamic State as a pretext to bomb northern Iraq in the supposed effort to defeat the PKK -- a group that they had entered into an armistice with.

    The United States government appears to have given a nod of approval on the attacks in exchange for the right to use Turkish air bases.  Tian Shaohui (Xinhua) observes, "Critics, including opposition politicians, have accused President Tayyip Erdogan of trying to use the campaign against the Islamic State as an excuse to crack down on Kurds."




    Patrick Cockburn (the Independent) observes:


    The result is that the US may find it has helped to destabilise Turkey by involving it in the war in both Iraq and Syria, yet without coming much closer to defeating Isis in either country. If so, America will have committed its biggest mistake in the Middle East since it invaded Iraq in 2003, believing it could overthrow Saddam Hussein and replace him with a pro-American government. 



    At today's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson John Kirby attempted to spin what is taking place.


    QUESTION: Can we start with – not the trip, although – you have any questions – about the – what’s going on right now with the Turks? And it seems like a really bizarre situation has unfolded over the course of the past week with them joining the air strikes against ISIS, but at the same time also bombing PKK positions. And there’s been some pushback on the suggestion – I noticed that Brett McGurk tweeted about it – that these are related, and that the United States – he saying that there was no deal done with the Turks, in other words. A lot of people find that really hard to believe. So what exactly is going on here, and doesn’t this just make an even bigger mess out of the situation then you had originally?
    MR KIRBY: I think – so let’s unpack. There’s an awful lot there, so let’s just unpack that. I don’t think that I could say it any better than Ambassador McGurk did. We are grateful for Turkey’s cooperation against ISIL to include now use of some of their bases for coalition aircraft to go against targets – ISIL targets, particularly in Syria. So we’re grateful for that support. The – so separate and distinct from that, Turkey has continued to come under attack by PKK terrorists, and we recognize their right to defend themselves against those attacks. And it was in retaliation for recent attacks by the PKK that Turkey conducted these most recent strikes.
    As for ISIL in Syria, we continue to discuss with Turkey ways at which we can go after this particular threat. Again, we value their cooperation thus far. They have a vested interest, obviously, because of its – it’s their border. And while there’s nothing new to announce with respect to what kind of cooperation may come in the future, we’re going to continue to talk to them about that.
    I understand the coincidence of all of this, but it is just that. The attacks against the PKK were in retaliations for attacks they, the Turks, endured, and what they’re doing against ISIL in Syria I’ll let them speak to. But obviously, we welcome all coalition members’ efforts against ISIL, particularly in Syria.
    QUESTION: All right, well, one: Are you suggesting then that the Turks – the attacks on the PKK are going to – are over now and that the Turks have retaliated enough for the attacks on them? And secondly, are you not concerned that these attacks, while they are directed against a group that you have designated a terrorist organization – the Turks certainly believe are a terrorist organization – and I’m talking about the PKK – are you not concerned that that is going to hinder or hurt the fight against ISIS/ISIL?
    MR KIRBY: I understand the second one. Am I concerned that their attacks against the PKK will detract from the fight against ISIL? Is that --
    QUESTION: Yeah. They’re killing people that are killing ISIL.
    MR KIRBY: The attacks against the PKK.
    QUESTION: Yes.
    MR KIRBY: Okay.
    QUESTION: Right? I mean, am I wrong?
    QUESTION: I mean, the PKK has been very effective against ISIL. They helped rescue Yezidis on Mount Sinjar. They’ve been fighting ISIS in Syria --
    MR KIRBY: Yeah. No. I think I got it.
    QUESTION: So there’s two in there.
    MR KIRBY: Is it over now?
    QUESTION: Have you been assured – or have you been told by the Turks that they’re – that this against the – the strikes against the PKK are limited duration and solely in retaliation for the attacks on them, and are going to stop?
    MR KIRBY: Right.
    QUESTION: And secondly, I mean, how does this not make it a big – it’s – how does this not hurt the fight against ISIS/ISIL?
    MR KIRBY: Okay, so two questions. First of all, is it over now? I don’t know. That’s a question that you have to ask Turkish officials. They retaliated against the PKK for strikes that they received from PKK terrorists. We have long recognized the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization, and we recognize Turkey’s ability – or, I’m sorry, Turkey’s right – to defend itself against this group. So is it over now? I don’t know. And that’s really not a question that we can answer from this podium.
    Two, does it hinder the fight against ISIL? What we’re trying to focus on here is a coalition to go after ISIL, counter ISIL. I recognize that, in some cases, the PKK have fought against ISIL. But they are a foreign terrorist organization. We designated them that, as an FTO. And our fight against ISIL is not in cooperation with, coordination with, or communication with the PKK. Our fight against ISIL is with 62 other nations in this coalition who are helping us go after these guys, and in Syria specifically. And again, DOD is working a train and equip program to get a moderate opposition capable enough to go after ISIL inside Syria.
    So the fight against ISIL will continue. We are grateful for the contributions of Turkey and other coalition members. And the pressure that we are going to put on them, regardless of what Turkey is doing against the PKK or will do in the future, that’s not going to diminish.
    Turkey's right to defend itself?

    Kirby's just another flapping gum US official who has no interest in helping Iraq or what happens to Iraq.

    Turkey is bombing northern Iraq.

    John Kirby can dress that up in all the endless words he wants but that's what's happening.

    And we remember what happened last time -- it outraged the Iraqi people.

    That was then.

    Today?

    Not so different.


    National Iraqi News Agency reports:

    The Vice President of the House of Representatives, Aram Sheikh Mohammed condemned the Turkish indiscriminate shelling on border areas in the Kurdistan region, stressing that the security of Turkey does not take place through the bypassing and breach Iraqi sovereignty and killing innocent civilians and burning and damaging farms without any justification.

    He called on Ankara, in a statement today, not to fail the peace process in Turkey, saying unfortunately the Turkish government again deliberately violated Iraqi sovereignty and bombed Iraqi territory under the pretext of keeping its security and began random and intensified aerial bombardment on the border areas in the Kurdistan region, and as a result of this bombing, a number of innocent citizens were killed and this heinous and provocative act is unacceptable and we condemn that strongly


     And NINA reports:
    MP, of the Iraqi Forces Coalition, Dhafer al-Ani called on Turkey to open a dialogue with the federal government and coordinate with the Ministry of Defence on the subject of bombing PKK's positions.

    Al-Ani said in a statement that there is no doubt that the security of Turkish and its friendly people and its stability concerns us and we are keen on its security and stability as we concern about ours and peace in all countries around us, and it is essential that there should be a regional security effort to hunt down terrorist organizations that infiltrate between the border, but this effort has to be conditional within the official coordination.

    He added that the justifications provided by Turkish officials about their understandings with the Kurdistan Regional Government on the entry of their jets into Iraqi airspace and carry out military strikes to armed groups inside Iraqi territory are not sufficient justifications, as we were waiting for understandings with Baghdad government and coordination with the Ministry of Defense in accordance with the known official formats in order to preserve national sovereignty
    Please note that Kirby could talk endlessly of Turkey's right to do whatever the hell it wanted but he seemed to think Iraq had no right to object to another country bombing it.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq: The minimizers and the abusers"
    "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Study in Hypoc..."
    "Hejira"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"
    "Barack's biggest disappointment"





     
    Posted by at No comments:

    Sunday, July 26, 2015

    Make sure it's a landline call

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


    CRANKY CLINTON IS READY FOR THE 3  A.M. PHONE CALL.

    IT'S JUST THE 3:30 P.M. E-MAIL SHE HAS TROUBLE WITH.



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    DEBAKA reports:

     The Middle East woke up Friday, July 24, to two new full-fledged wars launched by Jordan and Turkey for cutting down the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as is forces advanced on their borders. The United States and Israel are involved in both campaigns. Jordanian armored, commando and air forces are already operating deep inside Iraq, while Friday morning, Turkey conducted its first cross-border air strike against ISIS targets in Syria. Clashes between Turkish troops and Islamic fighters erupted at several points along the border. Both governments also conducted mass arrests of suspected Islamists. The Jordanian police picked up ISIS adherents, while 5,000 Turkish police detained 250 Islamist and outlawed Kurdish PKK suspects in Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir and Saniurta. Jordan Friday shut down its only border crossing with Iraq.


    But Turkey's not trying to cut down the Islamic State with these attacks.

    It's using the threat or 'threat' of the Islamic State to advance their own interests which is to yet again re-start the war between Turkey and the PKK -- Kurdish fighters who have fought for an independent Kurdish homeland (fought via armed violence) for decades now, since 1984.

    Contanze Letsch (Guardian) points out:




    Turkey launched overnight airstrikes against several positions of the outlawed Kurdistan Worker’s party (PKK) in northern Iraq for the first time in four years, the country’s government has said.
    The air raids put an end to a two-year ceasefire between the Turkish government and the PKK, severely endangering the already fragile peace process started in 2012 in an attempt to end a bloody conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people over 30 years.



    ITV adds, "The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) has said its 2013 truce with Turkey 'has no meaning anymore'."  AP explains, "The strikes in Iraq targeted the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, whose affiliates have been effective in battling the Islamic State group. The strikes further complicate the U.S.-led war against the extremists, which has relied on Kurdish ground forces making gains in Iraq and Syria."  Zia Weise and Chris Stevenson (Independent) note the shift in their report which includes:



     “With the bombardment, Turkey has ended the ceasefire,” said Zagros Hiwa, a spokesman for the PKK and the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) based in the Qandil mountains, told The Independent on Sunday. “It ended the ceasefire and it ended the peace process unilaterally. From now on, we will continue our struggle against all odds.”


    The action of the Turkish government should be immediately and universally called out.

    This is not helping anything.

    The Turkish government -- probably like many others -- is using the pretext of the Islamic State to attack Iraq.

    In doing so, it is violating Iraq's sovereignty yet again.

    This didn't work out well before, for any who paid attention.

    The Turkish warplanes, announcements swore, killed 'terrorists.'  Reality, they bombed farming communities and killed civilians.

    This didn't endear them to the Iraqi people.

    There was outrage, naturally.

    Now the Turkish government uses the threat or 'threat' of the Islamic State to overturn a peace initiative that they clearly never supported and were only waiting for the first chance to void.

    In terms of Turkey, this means the PKK is now engaged in war with them which will mean on the outskirts of Turkey as well as inside.

    This was a stupid decision by the Turkish government.

    The question right now is whether or not the White House approved this assault.

    Did the White House know about it and is that why there's been no major public condemnation of the assaults on northern Iraq from the White House?


    The best they can offer, as the BBC notes, is a minor player with minor words:

    US White House spokesman Alistair Baskey said Turkey had the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks by Kurdish rebels and urged the PKK to renounce terrorism.
    But he said that Ankara should also avoid violence towards the PKK and seek to de-escalate the conflict.


    Jacques Brinon (AP) notes that meek and weak wasn't the response in France where at least a thousand "Kurds and leftist Turks" took the streets of Paris to register their objections to Turkish warplanes bombing northern Iraq with banners decrying the action and some accusing the Turkish government of assisting the Islamic State.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Murray, Democrats Introduce Historic, Comprehensiv..."
    "More conflict in Iraq"
    "Ben Burgis why do you lie?"
    "Welcome to the room, Swanson"
    "Princess and President"
    "Extant (Ethan)"
    "EXtant"
    "Beauty and the Beast"
    "Like Igby, Hillary goes down"
    "yet again, hillary can't stop lying"
    "Did Hillary step in it or was she pushed?"
    "Extant"
    "When does Hillary drop out already?"
    "2 of a kind"
    "The War Hawk"
    "Ever?"
    "Rickie Lee Jones in San Francisco and Los Angeles"
    "Killer in chief"
    "Cher"
    "Grading the field"
    "Rickie Lee Jones talks to the CBC"
    "Ricke Lee Jones LA show"
    "Rickie Lee Jones talks to the CBC"
    "THIS JUST IN! WILL THE JUSTICE DEPT COME A'COURTING?"
    "Another scandal for Cranky"





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