Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Barry O is such a putz


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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WENT ON JIMMY FALLON'S CELEB CHAT SHOW AND ACTED LIKE OH-SO-MANY BRAINLESS AND BRALESS CELEBS.


SPEAKING OF SECRET SERVICE MEMBERS ENGAGING PROSTITUTES (AND REFUSING TO PAY THE AGREED UPON PRICE), BARRY O CALLED THEM "KNUCKLE HEADS."

THE KNUCKLE HEAD IS BARRY O.  WHAT THE SECRET SERVICE DID WAS BREAK THE LAW.  (THEY TAKE AN OATH TO FOLLOW THE U.S. LAWS.  IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.)


ALTHOUGH IT'S HARD FOR THE BRALESS, MANBOOBED, DITZ TO GRASP IT, THE SECRET SERVICE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BREAK ANY U.S. LAWS.  THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO SET THE STANDARD.

THE WORD IS "CRIMINALS" AND ONLY A DUMB ASS, OVERLY PRAISED AND FADED CELEBRITY WOULDN'T GRASP THAT.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



"Pfc. Bradley Manning made headway Tuesday in his bid to prove that WikiLeaks' publication of more than 700,000 confidential files did not damage national security," reports Adam Klasfeld (Courthouse News Service).  "Claiming that the documents [damage assessments] are classified, however, prosecutors have refused to give Manning access.  Military judge Col. Denise Lind ordered the government Tuesday to turn the documents over to the court by May 2."  What's going on?
 
In January, Josh Gerstein (POLITICO) reported, "Another military officer has formally recommended that Army Pfc. Bradley Manning face a full-scale court martial for allegedly leaking thousands of military reports and diplomatic cables to the online transparency site WikiLeaks." In addition, Article 32 hearings are almost always rubber stamps. Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December.  In January, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.
 
Currently, pre-court martial rulings are being made.  The Center for Constitutional Rights' Shane Kadidal Tweeted the hearing today (Tweeted at CCR's Twitter Feed).
 
 
#Manning hearing: ruling from court tomorrow on arguments re: defense access to grand jury testimony - presumably investigating #Wikileaks
 
 
#Manning trial: defense argues gov didn't cite right disclosure standard. Gov won't publicly disclose even its legal arguments from briefs.
 
#Manning hearing: Judge asks if gov has found material that might be useful to defense but hasn't been disclosed. Gov says yes.
 
 
 
#Manning trial: Coombs: gov has been working to find harm from cables. From docs received so far it's clear answer is 'no damage' #Wikileaks
 
 
AFP explains, "The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, said she would review the reports from the CIA, the FBI and other agencies to determine whether the documents were pertinent to Manning's defense. The damage reports, including those from the CIA, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Deparmtent, could cast doubt on prosecutors' claims that the exposure of classified documents on the WikiLeaks site had devastating or lethal results."  Larry Shaughnessy (CNN) adds, "As for the request to dismiss the charges, Coombs said because the prosecutors did not understand the discovery rules, he and his fellow attorneys have not been given information that could help in his defense."  Sky News notes, "A court-martial date has yet to be set and Manning so far has declined to enter a plea on the counts he faces in a case that involves one of the most serious intelligence reaches in US history."
 
Defense motions can be found at David E. Coombs' website Army Court Martial Defense Info.  These are the redacted ones the government is issuing as well as the unredacted ones.  The issue of public access to motions -- a standard in any legal case in the United States -- was raised today and the judge declared that the public could make a freedom of information request if they want documents.  At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked about the judge's decison that the government had to turn over documents to the defense.
 
 
QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?
 
 
 
MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven't seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what's been requested of us and what our response is.
 
 
 
As an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and a legal adviser to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, I continue to attend Manning's hearings and can only describe them as a theater of the absurd: the trial involves numerous and lengthy off-the-record conferences, out of sight and hearing of the press and public, after which the judge provides an in-court summary that hardly satisfies standards of "open and public". Perhaps more remarkable is the refusal even to provide the defense with a pre-trial publicity order signed by the judge – an order that details what lawyers can and cannot reveal about the case. Yes, even the degree to which proceedings should be kept in secret is a secret, leaving the public and media chained in a Plato's Cave, able only to glimpse the shadows of reality.
The press and advocacy groups, however, have not been quiet about the trampling of their rights. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, on behalf of 46 news organizations, urged the Department of Defense to take measures that would allow the news media to view documents prior to court arguments. The committee pointed out that the trial for the "alleged leak of the largest amount of classified information in US history" is of "intense public interest, particularly where, as here, that person's liberty is at stake". The Center for Constitutional Rights, too, has requested access in the interest of an "open and public" trial, but neither appeal has been answered.
This is a clear violation of the law, but it will likely take burdensome litigation to rectify this lack of transparency. The US supreme court has insisted that criminal trials must be public, and the fourth circuit, where this court martial is occurring, has ruled that the first amendment right of access to criminal trials includes the right to the documents in such trials.
The greater issue at hand is why this process should be necessary at all. As circuit judge Damon Keith famously wrote in Detroit Free Press v Ashcroft, "Democracies die behind closed doors."
 
 
In Iraq today, Alsumaria reports that an Anbar Province bombing left seven Iraqi soldiers injured,a Mosul car bombing targeting a checkpoint claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left two more injured and 1 person was kidnapped in Nineveh Province.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports 12 died in Iraq violence yesterday and ten were left wounded.   As violence continues in Iraq, AFP reports that Nouri al-Maliki has reduced the wages of Sahwa (Awakening, Sons Of Iraq) members by 20%."  Dropping back to the April 8, 2008 Senate Armed Services hearing when Gen David Petraeus, then the top US commander in Iraq, was explaining the "Awakenings.'
 
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".
 
 
 
The Awakening Movement has been in a tricky position for some time. They haven't been integrated into the state and they've also become targets for al-Qaeda extremists, who, after the withdrawal of US troops, started a campaign of intimidation and murder targeting Awakening members. They have been, al-Jibouri says, "abandoned by everyone".   
Previously the Awakening Movement had been seen as a resoundingly successful initiative. Founded in 2006, the armed groups were so successful in their counter-insurgency campaign and in assisting the US troops, that the idea was copied in Afghanistan too. 
No doubt the fact that the US was paying out around US$300 per month in wages to Awakening members also helped – at the height of the Awakening Movement's duties, this cost more than US$30 million a month. In late 2008, the Iraqi state began paying the wages of Awakening Movement members and it also promised to begin integrating the militias into state forces proper. 
However up until today, around half of those involved in the Awakening Movement say that they don't know if they will ever be employed by the Iraqi government. And others say they haven't been paid in months.
 
 


 


Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Now he's concerned about interest rates


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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HOPES TO GAIN THE YOUTH VOTE THAT HE HAS OTHERWISE LOST WITH A PUSH TO FREEZE INTEREST RATES ON STUDENT LOANS -- AN IDEA HIS GOP RIVAL MITT ROMNEY EMBRACES.

BARRY O'S SUPPORT FOR THE MEASURE IS APPARENTLY RECENT SINCE HE MADE A POINT TO SKIP A CONGRESSIONAL VOTE BACK IN 2007 -- TO SKIP IT TWICE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, SAMANTHA POWER STOPPED PLAYING "KILL THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD" WITH HER TOY MODELS AND DECLARED, "YOU CAN'T EXPECT SOMEONE AS WONDERFUL AS BARRY O TO KEEP PROMISES.  YOU CAN'T."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Starting in the US, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on "VA Mental Health Care: Evaulating Access and Accessing Care" starting at 9:30 am EST in the Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room 138. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office issued the following today:
 
 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, April 23, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224 - 2834
 
Murray Statement on IG Report Showing Major Delays in VA Mental Health Care
 
 
(Washington, D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, released the following statement after the Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General released a report that she had requested on the time it takes the VA to complete mental health care appointments for our nation's veterans. The report concludes, as Sen. Murray has repeatedly warned, that the wait times faced by many veterans far exceeded that which the VA has previously reported and the time the VA mandates. Murray will hold a hearing on Wednesday, April 25th to seek answers to these problems. The VA Inspector General will testify at that hearing.
 
"This report confirms what we have long been hearing, that our veterans are waiting far too long to get the mental health care they so desperately need. It is deeply disturbing and demands actions from the VA. The report shows the huge gulf between the time VA says it takes to get veterans mental health care and the reality of how long it actually takes veterans to get seen at facilities across the country.
 
"Getting our veterans timely mental health care can quite frankly often be the difference between life and death. It's the critical period, not unlike the 'golden hour' immediately after a traumatic physical injury. Yet this report clearly shows that the VA is failing to meet their own mandates for timeliness. Clearly the VA scheduling system needs a major overhaul. The VA also needs to get serious about hiring new mental health professionals in every corner of the country.
 
"What's particularly disappointing is that this report shows that the VA is failing many of those who have been brave enough to seek care. It is hard enough to get veterans into the VA system to receive mental health care. Once a veteran takes the step to reach out for help we need to knock down every potential barrier to care. Providing timely mental health care is a cost of the decade-long wars our veterans have fought and it is a cost that Congress and the American people are willing to meet."
 
###
 
Matt McAlvanah
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
202-224-2834 - press office
202--224-0228 - direct
matt_mcalvanah@murray.senate.gov
News Releases | Economic Resource Center | E-Mail Updates
 
A number of e-mails came in wanting the Petzel VA issue included in today's snapshot.  If there's room, it'll be at the end in full, if there's not room, it'll be edited.  I'll try to keep in the points that veterans and veterans' family members e-mailed saying they wanted included in the snapshot.
 
 
BAGHDAD, 23 April 2012 --  UNICEF condemns an attack that took place yesterday on a secondary school that killed two children and injured one near the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit. 
"UNICEF condemns this attack in the strongest terms" said Maria Calivis, UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa. "The killing of children is unacceptable. Attacks on schools, which are meant to provide a safe learning environment, is a grave violation of children's rights."
According to several reports, five armed men stormed into the school, two are said to have entered a 4th grade class and opened fire on the students, killing 16-year-old and 17-year-old boys and injuring a third aged 16.
UNICEF calls on the Government of Iraq to take the necessary measures to bring to justice those responsible for this attack and take swift action to ensure that measures are put in place to guarantee the safe access to schools to all children in Iraq. 
 
The violence never ends in Iraq.  Alsumaria notes an attack to the northeast of Baquba in which unknown assailants shot two police officers leaving them injured and they note that 2 intelligence service officers were shot dead (pistols had silencers), a Salah al-Din roadside bombing left a police major and a police captain injured and a roadside bombing west of Samarra left 1 person dead.
 
 
Meanwhile how bad are things between Iraq and the US currently? So bad that the White House is really trying to spin.  In other words, the administration finally gets that portraying Iraq and Iran as close friends doesn't work for the Barack Obama re-election campaign. 
 
In desperate need of an answer to "What the hell is going on?" -- a question, please note, not asked by the timid press, but by those concerned with national security -- the White House tried to turn a minor meeting into an event.  First, they issued a press release noting that a low-level Iraqi deputy (Huassain al-Shahristani) had met with Daniel Poneman (US Deputy Secretary of Energy) and Carlos Pascual (Special Envoy and Cooridinator for International Energy Affairs). Some will wrongly tell you that he's the former Minister of Energy.  No, he wasn't.  To have that post, he would have to be confirmed by the Parliament.  He was never confirmed for that post.  he did previously serve as the Minister of Oil.  He was nominated for that post by Nouri and the Parliament voted him into that post.  From Minister to one of many deupties, that's a demotion.  And that demotion took place despite the fact that al-Shahristani has been loyal to Nouri and is a member of Nouri's political slate State of Law.
 
The US bragged about spending (since 2003) $6.7 billion to help Iraqi energy production ("$4.6 billion to the power sector and $2.1 billion to the oil sector").  They then sent all three officials out for a photo-op and press briefing.  Again, the whole thing took place, this sudden 'event' because of the fact that the White House is facing tough questions from national security types and they have no answers.
 
Let's go to the weekend and then come back.  Over the weekend, Nouri went to Iran to dialogue with officials in Tehran.  That included the country's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Iran Independent News Agency notes, "Iraq no longer needs any help from the United States, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday as he offered to strengthen ties between the two neighbouring countries, which were once at war." Pakistan's The Nation adds:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday at the start of a two-day visit to boost relations between their Muslim states. "If Tehran and Baghdad are strong, the region will have no place for the United States and the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad said, quoted by state news agency IRNA, in reference to Tehran's arch-foe Israel. He said there was "no limit to the strengthening of political, economic and cultural ties" between them. 
Such moves would serve to "boost stability and security in the region," chimed in Maliki, who also held talks with parliament speaker Ali Larijani.Maliki was also to see Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili. 

Dar Addustour notes the public remarks Ahmadinejad made with Nouri by his side about how the region was no place for enemies of freedom like the US and Israel. The Tehran Times has Ahmadinejad calling the US and Israel enemies of the free world. (It's "Zionist regime," but he's referring to Israel.) RTT News observes, "Observers believe Iranian leaders intend to enhance their influence in Iraq after the pullout of U.S. troops by strengthening ties with Prime Minister Maliki who, like a majority of Iranians, is also a Shia Muslim."  

 
Generally speaking, the US government doesn't reward that sort of behavior.  Call it petty or pin it on vanity, but US leaders don't usually reward (or ignore) that sort of public display.   Now the official reason from the administration is "Iraq's going to help us with Iran on the nuclear thing!"  That's nonsense.  Iran's no where near building a nuclear weapon.  That's the talk of serial fabulists,  But to briefly inhabit the world so many in the administration do, let's pretend that they are on the verge.  There's nothing Iran's going to do that it doesn't want to do.  That's true today, that will be true when May 23rd rolls around as well. I spoke today to two who gave Barack's 2008 campaign the 'gravitas'  it so sorely needed.  They'd discussed this with the White House, Nouri's shoulder-to-shoulder as the US is verbally attacked.  They explained that the White House's actions are seen as pushing Iraq into the arms of Iran.  They explained how vulnerable Barack still is on foreign policy issues. 
 
Because of those conversations (and there were others raising the issue with the administration today), a minor non-meeting was pimped as an event.  It wasn't an event, it wasn't significant.  It took place today.  Friday, did the US State Dept's press briefing note the scheduled meeting? Nope.  In fact, Iraq wasn't even mentioned on Friday.
 
The State Dept has a regular press briefing today.  Did Victoria Nuland raise the meeting in the press briefing?  Nope.  We'll note the Iraq section -- reporters did ask about Iraq -- later in the snapshot but this meeting was noted or brought up.  Because it was a minor, do-nothing meeting.  It got inflated and pimped because repeat complaints to various members of the administration today made clear to them that they have an image problem that could hurt the 2012 election.  Please note, they're convinced that getting Nouri to meet with Iran for the nuclear talks is a great thing for knowledge.  But the complaints made them see there was political fallout so this minor meet-up was promoted as an event to try to say, "We're still close!"
 
 
He says: What do words ever reveal?
He says: In speaking one can be so false
We're so close we have a silent language
We don't need words at all
-- "We're So Close," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album Spy
 
FYI, that is an incredible song (link on song title goes to video) and, as Kat noted, last week the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) warded Carly the prestigious ASCAP Founders Award -- a very high honor -- others awarded the Founders Aware previously include Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Stevie Wonder, Ashford & Simpson (Valerie Simpson and the late Nick Ashford), and Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart.
 
 
 
 
Marina Ottaway:  Finally -- and this is the last comment that I want to make in terms of agency -- you also have to look at the neighboring countries.  And here I -- and here I truly disagree with the previous speaker.  I think the situation in the region is going to make the -- is going to aggravate the internal problem that Iraq is facing -- because, like it or not, the regional -- the politics of the region is moving in the direction of sectarian -- of sectarian conflict.  The -- talk about the -- you know, the Iran, Iraq, Syria -- one should say, Hizbollah, more than Lebanon -- sort of arc, if you want; the Shia crescent of which King Abdullah of Jordan spoke at one points -- which is coming back with a vengeance.  And I would argue that the polices of most countries -- of neighboring countries towards Iraq are colored, and are determined essentially, by this -- by the sectarian perspective.  The Gulf countries have resisted embracing the new government in -- essentially embracing Iraq, because they are perceiving Iraq as being a pawn of Iran.  Whether or not it is true, they are certainly contributing to pushing -- to pushing Iraq in the arms of Iran.  But there is no doubt that the policies of the Gulf countries towards Iran -- excuse me, towards Iraq -- are driven by this perception of what is the relationship between Iran and Iraq. 
 
That's Carnegie Endowment For International Peace's Marina Ottaway speaking at The State Of Iraq conference last February.  If she's correct (and she quite often is), the weekend love-fest really didn't help Iraq draw closer to all their other neighbors. 
 
And it's not like Iraq doesn't have problems with its other neighbors.  UPI notes, "Iraqi officials announced Monday they summoned Turkey's ambassador in Baghdad in reaction to disparaging remarks made last week by the Turkish prime minister."  What's going on?
 
Friday, Nouri al-Maliki abandoned his brief 13 day attempt to be nice.  He lashed out declaring Turkey to be an "enemy state" of Iraq.   Saturday Ayla Jean Yacklery (Reuters) reported, "Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday regjected charges he sought to inflame sectarian divisions in Iraq with recent criticism of its government and accused his Iraqi counterpart of trying to gain 'prestige' in an escalating war of words between the neighbours."  Al Jazeera added:

"We don't differentiate between Sunnis or Shias. Arab, Kurd or Turkmen, they are all our brothers," Erdogan told reporters in comments reported by the NTV news channel.
"If we respond to Mr. Maliki, we give him the opportunity to show off there. There is no need to allow him to gain prestige."
Turkey, which is majority Sunni, has been seen as a key ally and even a role model for Iraq, because of its secular constitution and close relations with the West, including membership in NATO.
Iraq is Turkey's second largest trading partner after Germany, with trade reaching $12 billion last year, more than half of which was with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region. 
With everything else Iraq is facing, you'd think Nouri al-Maliki would have the brains not to also antagonize one of its neighbors. 
 
Iraq came up in today's US State Dept press briefing.  There were three issues.  We'll note the third one first.
 
QUESTION: Toria, just a quick follow-up to this, but Maliki had really harsh words for Turkey. And now both of them are your allies, you have invested a great deal in Iraq. I mean, they're -- he's pushing the envelopes. You don't have any comment on that?
 
 
MS. NULAND: We have, for almost a decade now, encouraged increased dialogue, increased direct contacts between Iraq and Turkey. There are mechanisms for them to work through their issues together which we have endeavored to facilitate, and we encourage them to continue to use them to work through the issues that they have.
 



RECOMMENDED:




Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Swinging, cool cat Joe

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

FRANK SINATRA NEVER MADE IT INTO THE J.F.K. WHITE HOUSE. HE'D HOPED HIS WORK ON THE 1960 ELECTION, THE GALA CELEBRATION, THE CAMPAIGN THEME SONG ("HIGH HOPES"), CAMPAIGN CONSULTANT TO THE MOB AND MORE WOULD RESULT IN SOME RECOGNITION.

THAT NEVER HAPPENED AND SINATRA FOUND HIMSELF, LIKE MARILYN MONROE, USED AND PUSHED ASIDE.

BUT SOMEWHERE HE'S NO DOUBT SMILING TODAY AS HE LOOKS DOWN AND SEES THAT A MEMBER OF THE SUMMIT (THE SUCCESSOR TO THE RAT PACK) FINALLY MADE IT INTO THE ADMINISTRATION.

GRINNING AND POINTING FINGERS, JOE BIDEN HIT ARIZONA DEMONSTRATING HE WAS THE LATTER DAY JOEY BISHOP AS HE DECLARED OF CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S LAWS "LIKE LEGALIZING RATTLESNAKES IN THE LOBBIES OF HOTELS" AND, PRESUMABLY AFTER A SIP OF A MARTINI, INSISTING "I LOVE THIS GUY."


LIKE THE NON-COMEDIAN, NON-SINGER JOEY BISHOP, JOE BIDEN OFTEN FINDS HIMSELF ODD-MAN-OUT IN THE GROUP BUT THAT CAT KNOWS HOW TO SWING!


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Syria is a neighbor of Iraq. Iraq remains neutral on the issue of war on Syria or no war on Syria. They remain neutral for a number of reasons including fear of huge influx of refugees and also the fear that taking sides would further harden divisions inside Iraq, existing divisions. Yesterday the US Congress discussed Syria. Appearing before the House Armed Services Committee were Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs General Martin Dempsey.


US House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, if the situation changes and you believe the use of force in Syria becomes necessary, will this administration seek authorization from Congress before taking action?

Secretary Leon Panetta: We will, uh -- We will clearly work with Congress if it, uh -- if it, comes to the issue of force. I think this administration wants to work within the War Powers Provision to make sure that we work together, not separately.

US House Rep Walter Jones: Mr. Secretary, as a former member of Congress -- I have the biggest concern and this is not pointed at this administration, it could be at any administration -- they seem to want to take the authority to decide whether or not they need to go into a country that's not been a threat. They may have evil dictators, they might have problems in those countries. But I have been very concerned. I actually went to the federal courts for [US House Rep] Dennis Kucinich and two other Republicans and two other Democrats. We went to the courts because of the decision and how it was made -- I realize you were not there at the time [Panetta was heading the CIA, Robert Gates was the Secretary of Defense] -- about Libya. I continue to believe -- and the American people seem to agree -- that we in Congress have not exercted our Constitutional responsibilities when it comes to war. And I hate that if there is a decision -- including Iran and Syria -- if a decision is made to commit American forces that the president would feel an obligation to the American people -- not to Congress necessarily, but the American people -- to explain and justify why we would take that kind of action. And, again, I'm talking about a situation where we're not being attacked, we just see things happening in other countries that we don't approve of. And I would hope -- and I think you did give me this answer, but if you would reaffirm -- that if we have to use military force and we're going to initiate that force, it's going to be our initation that causes that force, that the president, any president, would come to Congress and the American people and justify the need to attack.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Congressman, as-as you understand uh-uh-uh this president -- as other presidents will -- will operate pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution makes clear that the Commander in Chief should, uh, act when the vital interests of this country are in jeopardy. Uh-and-uh I believe this president believes that if that in fact is the case he would do that in partnership with the Congress in terms of taking any action.

US House Rep Walter Jones: Well I'll make another statement and then I'll work towards a close, Mr. Chairman [Buck McKeon]. I remember my good friend [US House Rep] Randy Forbes from Viriginia asked Secretary Gates when we went in [Libyan War], it seemed like the administration, if they called the leadership of the House and Senate, it must have been one call each house, each Senate. And Mr. Forbes asked Mr. Gates, if the Libyans fired a missile in New York City would that be an act of war? And I have to say, because my friend from Virginia is very articulate and very intelligent gentleman, that he never got a straight answer. So I hope that you will prevail upon the administration not to take those kinds of actions as they did in Libya -- whether it was justified or not, I won't get into that debate. But, in my opinion, that was really a kind of snub of Congress and the responsibility of Congress -- based on the Constitution.

Secretary Leon Panetta: Congressman, what I can assure you of is that, as long as I am Secretary, we won't take any action without proper legal authority.

One of the most disgusting things about the hearing was realizing how the coin had flipped. Meaning that if Bully Bush were still in the White House, US House Rep Rob Andrews (Democrat from New Jersey) would have followed up Walter Jones' questions by attempting to hit on the main points. Instead, with the Oval Office occupied by a Democrat, Andrews felt the need was to take wiggle room, shake it out repeatedly and turn wiggle room into a summer getaway home. Our 'national interests' Andrews wanted it known, were reasons to go to war and, of course, Panetta agreed. That's a different standard then 'you are attacked.' In fact, that's even worse, this must be the Obama Doctrine, than Bully Boy Bush claiming he had the right to declare war on someone he thought might harm the US in the future -- near or distant. Barack's policy -- as discussed by Andrews and Panetta -- allows war for no threat. Just the idea that you might do something, as a country, that isn't in the US' national interests. Andrews defined national interest with "the weaker Hezbollah is, the better the United States is" and Panetta agreed and went on to add that "anything to weaken a terrorist organization is in our best interest." And these are the grounds for war? How sickening two little War Hawks all but mounting one another in public.

Republican J. Randy Forbes tried to get the conversation back to reality.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: When we talk about vital national interests, probably there's no greater vital interest that we have than the rule of law. So sometimes we have to just ferret that out and see what that is. As I understand what you have indicated to this Committee, Mr. Secretary -- and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that before we would take military action against Syria that it would be a requirement to have a consensus of permission with the international community before that would happen? Is that a fair statement? And if not, would you tell me what the proper --

Secretary Leon Panetta: I think that's a -- I think that's a fair statement.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: If that's fair, than I'd like to come back to the question Mr. Jones asked, just so we know. I know you would never do anything that you didn't think was legally proper and you said the administration would have proper, legal authority before they would take military action. So my question is what is proper, legal authority? And I come back to -- as Mr. Jones pointed out -- in the War Powers Act, it's unlikely we would have a declaration of war. But that would be one of the things. Certainly we know if there's a national attack that would be one of them. And the second thing in the War Powers Act would be specific statutory authorization. Do you feel that it would be a requirement to have proper legal authority? That if you did not have a declaration of war or an attack on the United States, that you would have to have specific statutory authority -- in other words, the permission of Congress, before you'd take military action?

Secretary Leon Panetta: We would not take action without proper legal authority. That's --

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And I understand. And in all due respect, I don't want to put you in an interrogation. But we're trying to find out what exactly proper legal authoirty is because that's what we have to act under. And we don't have the president here to chat with him or have a cup of coffee with him and ask him. You're the closest we get. And so we're asking for your understanding and as Secretary of Defense what is proper legal authority? Would that require specific statutory authorization from the United States Congress if we had not had a declaration of war or an attack upon the United States?

Secretary Leon Panetta: Well, again, let me put it on this basis. Uh, this administration intends to operate pursuant to the War Power Act. And whatever the War Powers Act would require in order for us to engage, we would abide by.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: And, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you for putting up with me as I just try to stumble through this and understand it. But as I read the War Powers Act, it has those three requirements. Are there any other requirements in there that you're familiar with that I'm leaving out or not reading?

Secretary Leon Panetta: No.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes:If that's the case, then again I just come back to, if there's no declaration of war, no attack upon the United States and if we're going to comply with the War Powers Act would that require specific statutory authority by Congress before we took military actions?

Secretary Leon Panetta: Again, under the Constitution, as I indicated, the commander in chief has the authority to take action that involves the vital interests of this country. But then pursuant to the War Powers Act, we would have to take steps to get Congressional approval. And that's -- that's the process that we would follow.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: Uhm, you'd have to take steps to get that approval but would the approval be required before you would take military action against Syria?

Secretary Leon Panetta: As I understand the Constitution and the power of the president, the president could in fact deploy forces if he to under -- if-if-if our vital interests were at stake. But then, under the War Powers Act, we would have to come here for your support and permission.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes: So you get the support of Congress after you begin military operations.

Secretary Leon Panetta: In that -- In that particular situation, yes.

US House Rep J. Randy Forbes:Then just one last thing and make sure I'm stating this correctly, it's your position that the administration's position would be that we'd have to get a consensus of permission from the international community before we would act but we wouldn't have to get specific statutory authority from Congress before we would act.
Secretary Leon Panetta: Well I think in that situation, if international action is taken pursuant to a [UN] security council resolution or under our treaty obligations with regards to NATO that obviously we would participate with the international community. But then ultimately the Congress of the United States, pursuant to its powers of the purse, would be able to determine whether or not that action is appropriate or not.

Panetta's song and dance wasn't amusing. And the War Powers Act did not matter to the White Houe when it came to the Libyan War. (Panetta's exchange with Andrews suggested it wouldn't matter with regards to Libya.) For those who've forgotten the illegality of the Libyan War, we're dropping back to an episode of Law and Disorder Radio -- which began airing on WBAI July 11th and around the country throughout that week. Attorneys and hosts Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) discussed a number of issues including impeachment. Excerpt.

 
Michael Smith: Michael, the actions that the Obama administration took against Libya is really a perversion of the law. Explain what they did in order to justify not going to Congress.
Michael Ratner: Well the use of military force by the president has to be authorized by Congress under the United States Constitution. That's very clear. And it's not just war, it's use of -- it's hostilities, it's really any military action anywhere in the world other than in self-defense. So we start from the premise that military actions, whether in Libya, killing people in Somolia or Yemen, etc., has to be authorized by Congress. In some cases the president claimed that the authorization to use military force passed in 2001 -- after 9/11 -- gave him authority. But in other cases, he's just asserting raw, naked power. He's claiming that because these don't amount to large wars that the Constitution doesn't apply and he doesn't have to go to Congress. Now then what happened because this is a common claim of presidents whether it's in Libya or Somolia, Congress after Vietnam built in a safety trigger. They said, "Lookit, you still need our consent to go to war, or to go into hostilities or bomb people, etc. But we're going to put in a safety trigger. If you do that, if you engage in hostilities and you don't come to us first like you're required to do under the Constitution, then you have sixty days to come back to us and get authority or within sixty days all troops have to be automatically withdrawn." So it's a safety figure because they knew the president would do exactly what Obama is doing, violate the Constitution. They put in a safety trigger that said you have sixty days to get authority, if you don't have authority then you then have 30 more days to get all the troops out, a total of 90 days. So in the case of Libya, of course, the 90 days have passed and the War Powers Resolution had required that all those troops be brought out. So we had a sort of double system. Is that clear, Michael?
Michael Smith: Well as a practical matter, the political will in this country is lacking to do anything. Technically what he did is a crime and he can be impeached for it and tried and gotten out of office but I don't think that's going to happen.
Michael Ratner: It's a high crime or misdemeanor. It's true violation of the Constitution, it's a violation of Congressional statute, you could impeach him. But good luck. We've never -- we've never successfully impeached anybody. I mean, we had, you know, Andrew Johnson after the Civil War was at least tried and acquitted eventually but I think that was the case. Nixon, rather than be impeached, resigned. Clinton made it through. Bush made it through. So what do you say, Michael? It looks like it's not a really good lever.





Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Jalal covers for Nouri "
"PTSD and the reporter who made a fool of herself"
"I Hate The War"
"Zucchini Ribbons in the Kitchen"
"Food and rebuke"
"That's informative?"
"I guess I better turn myself in"
"6 men, 1 woman"
"6 men, 0 women"
"community"
"revenge"
"Mr. Moyers, really?"
"Another lesson Harry Reid will never learn"
"Music and more"
"Carly"
"Books"
"Writing and media"
"Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol"
"Hillary"
"Ghosts of Network Bombs Past and Present"
"Chris Hill owes the nation an apology"
"Nouri is destroying Iraq"
"Clemens and Pettitte"
"He's the new Cesar Romer "
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT A SPECIAL FELLOW!"


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 20, 2012

He's the new Cesar Romero

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

IN BAD NEWS FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, THE NUMBERS ARE NO FRIEND TO HIM WHEN YOU RUN THEM. BUT AS J.F.K. HAD MARILYN MONROE, BARRY O HAS PLASTIC SURGERY ADDICT GEORGE CLOONEY WHO, IF HE HAS JUST ONE MORE FACE LIFT, WILL LOOK LIKE YOUR AUNT MARGARET.

APPEARING TO HAVE OVERDOSED ON BOTOX AND ESTROGEN AND HAVING NO LUCK DEVELOPING A MASCULINE VIBE WITH THAT FUSSED-OVER BEARD, GEORGE CLOONEY HAS HAD TO FACE THE FACT THAT HE'S FAR TOO LONG IN THE TOOTH TO BE ANYBODY'S BOY TOY AND, THAT, IF NOT KIDS, TRICKS ARE DEFINITELY FOR YOUNGER MEN THAN HE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As dust storms swept many areas today, AGI notes "a wave of attacks" slammed Iraq.
Al Arabiya reports, "More than 20 bombs hit cities and towns across Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 36 and wounding more than 100, police and hospital sources said, raising fears of sectarian strife in a country keen to show it can now maintain security." Adnkronos International quotes Baghdad security chief Diya al-Wakil saying of the attacks, "It's an attempt to cause our efforts to return security to the country to collapse. It's a way to make the Iraqi people have a bad opinion about our work."

Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) explains "The blasts were a series of co-ordinated attacks in Baghdad and northern cities but mostly within Shia neighbourhoods." Prensa Latina notes, "An Interior Ministry's spokesman said the first explosion occurred at rush hour this morning, when a car bomb exploded in the Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah, in northern Baghdad, killing three and injuring 11." The Belfast Telegraph adds, "Extremists launched 12 attacks in the Iraqi capital and in the cities of Kirkuk, Samarra, Baqouba, Dibis and Taji. Mortars were fired into the northern cities of Beiji and Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, but no injuries were reported there." UPI counts 35 dead and over seventy-three injured while the Voice of Russia counts 36 dead and over one hundred dead. ITV also goes with 36 killed. Salam Faraj (AFP) counts it out this way, "Twenty-two civilians, eight police, three members of an anti-Qaeda militia and two soldiers were killed in dozens of attacks, including 14 separate car bombings." Alsumaria puts the number injured at over 146. As the day ended, AFP noted the death toll -- per security officials -- had risen to 38 with over one-hundred and sixty people wounded.
The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General (SRSG) for Iraq, Mr. Martin Kobler, condemned in the strongest terms the series of bomb attacks that took place today across Iraq and that have reportedly resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries.
SRSG Kobler expressed concern at the continuation of violence in the country and the targeting of security officials and personnel as well as the indiscriminate attacks on civilians. "These horrendous crimes being committed against the Iraqi people need to stop for Iraq to achieve the prosperous and secure future its people duly deserve," SRSG Kobler said.
SRSG Kobler reiterated the need for all Iraqis to work together to end the hideous crimes being committed against the Iraqi people to hamper its success as a democratic, stable and prosperous nation.
SRSG Kobler extends his condolences to the families of those who were killed and his wishes for the speedy recovery of those who were injured, and called on the Iraqi people to remain steadfast in the face of the attempts to derail Iraq's quest for a better future.
This would be a good place to note the lousy performance of the US State Dept, but we'll pick that up after the day's violence.
The Los Angeles Times explains, "The attacks drew sharp criticism of the country's security apparatus, with Maysoon Damalooji, spokeswoman for the Iraqiya political bloc, saying they reflected planning weakness. Parliament Speaker Usama Nujaifi demanded that leaders of the security forces bear responsibility." Peter Cave (Radio Australia News)quotes Maysoon al-Damaluji stating, "The continuation of bloody explosions, although it has been already announced that tight security measures have been taken, reflects the weak security plans and the necessity to reconsider them. The commander of the armed forces [Nouri al-Maliki] is responsible for providing security and complete safety for citizens." Alsumaria reports that the Kirkuk Provincial Council is calling for all security plans to be reviewed stating that the plans clearly are not preventing attacks or providing security. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) offers, "Many criticize Maliki with being preoccupied with his own authority instead of ensuring security in the country." Al Bawaba also stresses that perception, "These attacks occur amid a highly tense political climate. Several political parties have accused Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is in office since 2006, of seeking to impose a new dictatorship in Iraq."
Last month, Iraq Body Count reported at least 295 people died from violence in Iraq. And that March total came about only after Baghdad was under lockdown for a full week in the days leading up to the Arab League Summit. Already this week, Xinhua has reported 13 dead in Monday's violence alone (nine injured).


BBC News (link is text and video) breaks down today's violence as follows:

In Baghdad, a series of at least five blasts struck in various Shia neighbourhoods
Police say two car bombs went off in Kirkuk, 180 miles (290km) north of Baghdad
A suicide bomber killed a police officer in Baquba, an army officer said
Two car bombs targeted security forces in Samarra
A parked car exploded killing passers-by in Dibis
A roadside device exploded in Taji

Rami Ruhayem declares, "The targets have been varied. Some of them are civilian targets such as shops, Iranian pilgrims in Baghdad and also army and police forces." Richard Spencer (Telegraph of London) observes, "Five members of the Sahwa, or Awakening Council, a Sunni militia formed by the American forces before they left the country to combat Al-Qaeda in their own areas, were killed in a bomb attack on a checkpoint in Samarra." Deutsche Welle adds, "The blasts unfolded closely, over an hour and a quarter." Xinhua notes there were car bombs, roadside bombs, suicide bombs and shootings. Press TV states, "Police officials in the provincial capital city of Mosul in Nineveh said three people sustained injuries in a bomb attack carried out in a restaurant."

ITN quotes a wounded police officer in Kirkuk stating, "I was trying to stop traffic to let a police patrol pass. When it passed, a car bomb exploded and I fell on the ground and police took me to the hospital."
In addition to the above, Alsumaria notes a Baiji refinery came under a mortar attack causing minor damage to the refinery and fence but leaving one worker injured.
While the UN spoke clearly, the US State Dept continued its role as eternal disappointment. Spokesperson Mark C. Toner handled the breifing today and wouldn't have even raised the issue of Iraq if, in the last five, the issue of Iraq and a meeting with Iran May 23rd to discuss nuclear issues, hadn't been raised. Once the issue was raised, the spokesperson suddenly remembered Iraq.
Mark C. Toner: Oh, absolutely. We are -- first of all, I want to strongly condemn today's attacks. Targeting of innocent civilians is unacceptable; it's cowardly. And we obviously offer our condolences to the victims. But we are -- they just hosted a very successful Arab League Summit and we have every confidence that they can host this meeting.
The State Dept spends more on Iraq than any other country. They claim they need 6 billion dollars yearly and aren't prepared to say when that 'need' might end but admit to Congress that it will be "years." Yet as violence sweeps Iraq today, they can't even think to weigh in on the subject? They have to be asked to remember? And that's in the last three minutes of a lengthy press conference?
Someone needs to explain it to the State Dept. First, if you ask the American people if the State Dept needs $6 billion annually just for Iraq, the answer back is going to be NO. Not by a plurality but by a strong majority. Second, if you're spending taxpayer money, taxpayers have a right to expect updates. Under Barack Obama (US President) and Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State), the State Department has become as secretive as the Department of Justice under Bully Boy Bush -- and that's nothing to be proud of. The secrecy is evident in the continued attacks on Foreign Service Officer Peter Van Buren. At his blog today, Van Buren's notes the violence in this post and the US Embassy in Baghdad's silence as well as including a photo that was also up in a post yesterday while everyone was focused on the US official who received a blow job on a Baghdad roof. The photo is of former US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill. It's Halloween and some woman has dressed as then-Jackie Kennedy which is in poor taste since she and Chris Hill are a 'couple' (at least for Halloween). Hill's dressed as? A Secret Service bodyguard of JFK's.
That's not funny. I hate Bill Maher, but if he did it, I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care about any private citizen. But Hill was the US Ambassador to Baghdad and he thought it was hilarious to mock the day JFK was assassinated? What kind of leadership did this asshole provide?
All the manic depressive kook did was rip apart the diplomtic ground work Ryan Crocker had established. Hill was afraid of Nouri al-Maliki. Gen Ray Odierno had to repeatedly calm the fretful Chris Hill down. So not only was he not up to the job (as we said in real time after he appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), he was a total creep. What he did was disgusting and that he did it an Embassy Halloween function? Chris Hill needs to be loudly condemned. I knew he was an ass and I knew he was an idiot but I was passed his personnel file before he was confirmed. Based on that record alone, he shouldn't have been confirmed.
But to now find out that the ass thought it was appropriate to mock one of the worst days in American history? To dress up as a Secret Service agent who wasn't able to protect Kennedy and some State Dept Woman (referred to as SDW from this point on) who thought she could dress up as Jackie Kennedy from the same day? Cause what's funnier than seeing your husband shot dead before your eyes? What's funnier than have bullets flying all around you?
Did Jacqueline Kenney Onassis really deserve that 'joke'? She conducted herself on the day and the immediate days after in a manner that still sets a standard for First Ladies. And some employee of the State Dept thinks they can go to a department party mocking her? Mocking her on what was one of the scariest and saddest days of her life?
(FYI, SDW is an idiot for many reasons including her pink ensemble isn't what Jackie was wearing that day -- Jackie had on a pink skirt, a black top, a pink jacket and a pink hat, the idiot doesn't even the outfit right.)
And Chris Hill didn't just give it a thumbs up which would have been bad enough, he actively participated in the sick 'joke' by dressing as a Secret Service agent. (In fairness to the Secret Service which is under fire right now, it should be noted that the 'joke' was in poor taste to their efforts that November day as well.)
That is disgusting. That is offensive and grasp, please grasp, that Hill was supposed to be a diplomat. He's an idiot and he owes the American people an apology. That little stunt wasn't funny and it wasn't cute. Apparently, if he'd remained in government service, he'd be dressed as a 9-11 victim this year and his date as the Twin Towers. This was beyond tasteless. Chris Hill needs to answer for this. And I think Hillary does as well. What did the White House think when they learned Chris Hill, at a party in Baghdad, thought it would be funny to lampoon the assassination of JFK?
That is beyond tacky, it's beyond offensive, there's no excuse for it. Chris Hill is trash, 100% trash.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)