Thursday, February 04, 2016

She has a plan

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

CRANKY CLINTON STEPPED IN IT AGAIN.

THE E-MAIL SCANDAL WILL NOT DIE.

AND IT COULD DERAIL HER CORONATION.

AND JEFF COHEN SEES A FUTURE FOR CRANKY AS A STAND UP COMIC.

THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE'S NOT PARTICULARLY KNOWN FOR HAVING A SENSE OF HUMOR.

AND OTHERS SUGGEST SHE CONSIDER A CAREER IN THE SEX INDUSTRY -- OR ANYTHING BUT THE PRESIDENCY.

THIS ALL GOES TO THE FACT THAT SHE IS SO DEEPLY UNPOPULAR.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY DISMISSED THE LOATHING AS SHE INSISTED, "ONCE I'M PRESIDENT, I WILL MAKE IT A LAW THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS TO LOVE ME.  AND WORSHIP ME.  ALWAYS."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) reports, "Iraq said Tuesday it is building a wall and trench around Baghdad in an effort to secure the city from terror attacks."

As Aretha Franklin sings, "Here we go again, it's the same old song."


Doubt it?

From Edward Wong's September 16, 2006 "Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" (NEW YORK TIMES):



The Iraqi government plans to seal off Baghdad within weeks by ringing it with a series of trenches and setting up dozens of traffic checkpoints to control movement in and out of the violent city of seven million people, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Friday.
The effort is one of the most ambitious security projects this year, with cars expected to be funneled through 28 checkpoints along the main arteries snaking out from the capital. Smaller roads would be closed. The trenches would run across farmland or other open areas to prevent cars from evading checkpoints, said the ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf.
"We're going to build a trench around Baghdad so we can control the exits and entrances so people will be searched properly," he said in a telephone interview. "The idea is to get the cars to go through the 28 checkpoints that we set up."


Ten years later and it's time to trot out the same old thing and pretend it's a new idea.


Of the 'new' proposal, AP adds:

 The interior ministry’s spokesman, police Brigadier General Saad Maan, told the Associated Press that work began this week on a 100km (65-mile) stretch of the wall and trench on the northern and northwestern approaches of the capital.
The wall will be three metres (10 feet) high and partially made up of concrete barriers already in use across much of the capital, he said. He declined to specify the measurements of the trench.


And BBC NEWS notes:

The barrier will also have a two-metre deep trench running alongside it, Al-Sumariyah news website reported. Surveillance cameras, explosives detection devices and towers will also be installed.
Many parts of the capital are surrounded by concrete barriers. Some of these walls will be taken out of the city's streets and re-installed as part of the new barrier, Mr al-Shammari said. 
The Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Saad Maan, said work began this week on a 65-mile stretch of the wall and trench around the capital, the Associated Press reported. The wall will be 10-feet high and partially made up of concrete barriers, he said."




Let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot for a moment:




In the age of Barack, we're all supposed to politely bite our tongues.
Barack's also a War Criminal.
At his most laughable, Gregory types, "The first step would entail convincing key regional players to pursue the requisite policies to achieve the designated goal. The Iraqi government would be an enthusiastic partner but would need to demonstrate its inclusiveness and ability to unite the country’s diverse ethnicities and religious sects."
I guess that's one way to put it.
Not accurate but who needs accuracy when, like Gregory, you're arguing for more war.

Seth J. Frantzman (NATIONAL INTEREST) notes:

 In addition to the abuses against non-Sunni minorities in Mosul by Islamic State, the Sunni residents who make up the city told local reporters and human rights organizations in 2014 that Iraqi security forces executed prisoners before withdrawing. Human Rights Watch relayed stories of more than a dozen men executed after being removed from the Counterterrorism and Organized Crime prison.
This sense of persecution at the hands of Nuri al-Maliki’s Shia-led government prompted many to support ISIS when it arrived.



And the abuses continue under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's rule.













    • Saturday, Human Rights Watch noted:



     Members of Shia militias, who the Iraqi government has included among its state forces, abducted and killed scores of Sunni residents in a central Iraq town and demolished Sunni homes, stores, and mosques following January 11, 2016 bombings claimed by the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS. None of those responsible have been brought to justice.
    Two consecutive bombings at a café in the town of Muqdadiya, in Diyala province, some 130 kilometers north of Baghdad, on January 11, killed at least 26 people, many of them Sunnis, according to a teacher who lives near the café. ISIS claimed the attacks, saying it had targeted local Shia militias, collectively known as Popular Mobilization Forces, which are formally under the command of the prime minister. Members of two of the dominant militias in Muqdadiya, the Badr Brigades and the League of Righteous forces, responded by attacking Sunnis as well as their homes and mosques, killing at least a dozen people and perhaps many more, according to local residents.

    “Again civilians are paying the price for Iraq’s failure to rein in the out-of-control militias,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Countries that support Iraqi security forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces should insist that Baghdad bring an end to this deadly abuse.” 

    Can you grasp that?
    If you can, grasp this:  It is illegal for the US government to support a regime or government that attacks its own people.  It is against domestic US law and it is against international law.
    Barack's a War Criminal.
    Maybe because he wants to be, maybe because he's lazy (and would rather just continue the same instead of transform it into something different), who knows why he is how he is?
    But a War Crime is taking place and he is the War Criminal.






    Concerned Reader e-mails, "There is no such law.  Even if there were, you are holding President Obama to a higher standard than you would any other leader.  No White House would ever threaten Iraq with losing funding or support because their government forces were attacking the people.  No one."


    No one?


    Refer to the front page of the September 30, 2006 NEW YORK TIMES which featured Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "U.S. May Cut Aid to Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses" which explained:


    American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit "gross violations of human rights" and are not brought to justice.


    So I'm expecting too much from Barack when I expect him to follow the law?


    And I'm also expecting too much from Barack when I expect him to at least do the bare minimum on human rights that Bully Boy Bush did?


    That's really lowering the bar.



    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
    "Griffis misses the point again"
    "Steve Grand 'Stay'"
    "phoebe snow"
    "Carly Simon 'Make Me Feel Something'"
    "PJ Olsson and "Visine""
    "Aretha's 'Sweet Bitter Love'"
    "Driving All Night with Joss Stone"
    "Donna Summer "There Will Always Be A You""
    "Stevie Nicks 'Lady'"
    "Ashford & Simpson's "High Rise""
    "When We Two Parted"
    "THIS JUST IN! WHAT'S THAT WHITE STAIN ON THE CLOTHING, HILLARY!"
    "The secret relationships between Hillary and Donald revealed"





    Posted by at 2 comments:

    Wednesday, February 03, 2016

    The secret relationships between Hillary and Donald revealed

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



    THAT MAN IN QUESTION IS DONALD TRUMP.

    BUT PROBLEMS REMAIN.

    FOR EXAMPLE, DONALD TRUMP IS SAID TO BE IN POSSESSION OF A STAINED BLACK T-SHIRT.

    THE STICKY, WHITE CAKED ON STAINS ARE SAID TO BE THE REMAINS OF ICING -- OR 'FROSTING' -- FROM A CAN OF FROZEN CINNAMON BUNS THE TWO USED FOR A FRIENDSHIP BREAKFAST IN HAPPIER TIMES.

    REPORTEDLY, TRUMP IS WILLING TO GO PUBLIC WITH THE T-SHIRT AND DETAILS OF THE BREAKFAST WHICH MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE FOLLOWING A SLUMBER PARTY WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE INCLUDED A PILLOW FIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO.




    The above is a failed tactic.

    It is not a strategy.

    Matthew Gregory disagrees.

    Because he's an idiot.

    He's not just any idiot at Georgetown, he's an idiot who shows where whoring leads.

    In a column, he insists that US President Barack Obama has a strategy.

    The fool can speak like this -- and it gets worse -- because whoring has allowed it.

    In the early years of the never-ending Iraq War, students on campuses overwhelmingly opposed the Iraq War and demanded US troops leave Iraq.

    After nearly eight years of Barack in the White House, and all the whoring that entails, there is a large -- not yet a majority -- number of students on college campuses today who are wallow in their stupidity and revel in their sense of entitlement.

    Gregory, for example, dictates that Iraq will not split up.

    Because he will impose on Iraq what he wants.

    Let's be honest for a moment.

    Iraq is a false creation by outside forces.

    It has never hung together peacefully as a country.

    In instances like this, at one point or another, the 'country' splits up.

    That will likely take place with Iraq.

    It might be next year, it might be 100 years from now.

    If Iraq is stay together this year or any other?

    It's going to be the decision of the Iraqi people.

    We have repeatedly said here that only they can make the decision to split up or to stay together.

    It cannot be imposed upon from the outside.

    That's what self-will and democracy are all about.

    But Matthew Gregory's been lied to for so long he doesn't grasp that.

    He's Samantha Power all over again.

    The Cruise Missile Left, as they've been called.

    He's been failed by his own sense of entitlement and by the silence on the left since Barack was elected.

    The refusal to demand an end to the Iraq War.

    The refusal to call a liar a "liar."  And Barack is a liar.

    "No boots on the ground."  That lie just gets bigger and bigger as he continues the Iraq War.

    As Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) points out, "The US has repeatedly added boots on the ground to the war, and has some 3,700 ground troops in Iraq now, with Pentagon officials pushing a proposal to get that up to 4,500."


    Barack's a liar.

    During the age of Bully Boy Bush, a liar could be called a liar.

    In the age of Barack, we're all supposed to politely bite our tongues.

    Barack's also a War Criminal.

    At his most laughable, Gregory types, "The first step would entail convincing key regional players to pursue the requisite policies to achieve the designated goal. The Iraqi government would be an enthusiastic partner but would need to demonstrate its inclusiveness and ability to unite the country’s diverse ethnicities and religious sects."

    I guess that's one way to put it.

    Not accurate but who needs accuracy when, like Gregory, you're arguing for more war.


    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"




    Posted by at 1 comment:

    Sunday, January 31, 2016

    Cranky's winning ways

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

    IN PREPARATION FOR THE BIG DAY IN IOWA THIS MONDAY, CRANKY CLINTON AND HER SUPPORTERS GATHERED IN A LARGE WOODED AREA JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT AND CREATED A SMALL CLEARING WHERE THEY BURNED AT THE STAKE A YOUNG VIRGIN TO ENSURE THAT CRANKY COULD CINCH THE NOMINATION THIS GO ROUND.


    AFTERWARDS, CRANKY DEVOURED THE HEARTS OF 2 SMALL CHILDREN WHILE BUSYING HERSELF MAKING A VOO DOO DOLL OF BERNIE SANDERS.

    "IT'S ALL PART OF THE PROCESS," CRANKY EXPLAINED.


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    All these years later, why are any US troops in Iraq?

    There is no strategy, there is no logic, there is only continued death and destruction.


    Which is why it does matter that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

    In 2002, she was a US Senator and she chose to vote for the Iraq War.

    She chose to support it for years after.

    It's only in 2008 that she can call it a 'mistake' publicly and then, this week, she insisted it was a 'mistake' only because Bully Boy Bush had prosecuted the war wrongly.


    She's a liar.

    As a US Senator, as a First Lady, as a Secretary of State, she's a liar.

    But she thinks she deserves the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

    Other are less likely to agree.  Take Angela Ross of Eugene, Oregon who writes a letter to the editor of THE REGISTER GUARD explaining:



    Many of my women friends favor electing Hillary Clinton as our next president because she’s a woman, but I can’t base my vote on gender.
    Because Clinton voted to support the Iraq war while in the U.S. Senate, I can’t in good conscience vote for her for president. If she’d argued against invading Iraq (as Sen. Bernie Sanders did), it would have shown leadership. Instead, she went along with the Bush-Cheney program.
    [. . .]
    I not only will vote for Sanders, I’ll also work hard participating in the democratic process his campaign engenders. He has 21st century ideas, whereas the ideas of Clinton and other establishment figures are from the 20th century.
     Miles Mogulescu (HUFFINGTON POST) argues:

    Hillary may have foreign policy experience, but when push came to shove, she showed an extreme lack of judgment on the most important foreign policy decision in a generation. As in 2008 when she was running against Obama, it casts serious doubt on whether she's the Democrats' best presidential nominee.
    Hillary voted for the Iraq War either out of rank political opportunism, because as a prospective presidential candidate, she feared that an anti-war vote would make her look weak. If so, she voted to send thousands to their deaths to further her political career.
    Or she voted for the war out of a sincere belief in the benefits of American military intervention in the Middle East and the good that could come from regime change. If so, her beliefs showed an extreme lack of foreign policy judgment.
    I'm not sure which is worse: voting for a needless and destructive war out of political opportunism or out of poor judgment. In either event, the Iraq War vote remains a big black mark on Hillary's claim that her foreign policy experience makes her the best choice to be Commander in Chief on Day 1.



    Academy Award winning actress Susan Sarandon spoke out against the Iraq War.  While Hillary used support of the Iraq War to increase her own profile, Susan opposed the war and was verbally attacked for that.  She saw a charity event cancelled because she supported peace.

    As Gregory Favre (POYNTER) explained March 28, 2003:

    This week, the folks at United Way of Tampa Bay, in their infinite lack of wisdom, canceled an event because the actor Susan Sarandon was to be the speaker. This decision was made the day after she flashed the peace sign during the Academy Awards telecast.
    How dare she have an opinion, much less express it.
    So the $75 a plate dinner was sacrificed. (In the interest of full disclosure, Sarandon's fee was being paid by the St. Petersburg Times, which is owned by The Poynter Institute, my employer. And my boss, our dean, Karen Dunlap, was scheduled to interview her as part of the program.)
    It had nothing to do with Sarandon's views, a United Way spokesperson said. It's just that her presence would have been divisive.
    But isn't this kind of heavy-handed response to dissent happening all over this country? Just listen to the violence of the language aimed at those who may raise questions. Are we back in the '50s and '60s of the last century?


    And it didn't end there.  Roger Catlin (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reported the following month:

     Last week, she and her partner, Tim Robbins, were told by Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey, a former assistant press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, that he was canceling a 15th anniversary celebration of their film "Bull Durham." Petroskey said the couple's antiwar stance "ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." Earlier, Sarandon's appearance at a United Way event in Florida was canceled.



    Hillary didn't just speak out for the war, she voted for it.  Despite the fact that she was supposedly representing the state of New York which gave her no mandate to support the Iraq War.

    She voted for in direct opposition of the will of the citizens she represented.

    So she attacked democracy and logic to embrace illegal war.


    In an attempt to bury the issue before her planned run for the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Hillary 'addressed' the issue in her ghost-written, poor selling book entitled HARD CHOICES.  Lesley Clark (MCCLATCHY NEWS) noted in 2014:

     Democrats such as Clinton believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat, a belief they said was fed by their own research beyond the word of the Bush White House, all of which later proved to be wrong.
    Clinton said in the book that she’d voted to authorize war “after weighing the evidence and seeking as many opinions as I could inside and outside our government, Democrats and Republicans alike.”


    But as Stephen Zunes (FPIF) pointed out earlier this week:

    “Her vote was simply a mistake.”
    While few Clinton supporters are still willing to argue her support for the war was a good thing, many try to minimize its significance by referring to it as simply a “mistake.” But while it may have been a terrible decision, it was neither an accident nor an aberration from Clinton’s generally hawkish worldview.
    It would have been a “mistake” if Hillary Clinton had pushed the “aye” button when she meant to push the “nay” button. In fact, her decision — by her own admission — was quite conscious.
    The October 2002 war resolution on Iraq wasn’t like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing military force in Vietnam, which was quickly passed as an emergency request by President Lyndon Johnson when there was no time for reflection and debate. By contrast, at the time of the Iraq War authorization, there had been months of public debate on the matter. Clinton had plenty of time to investigate the administration’s claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as to consider the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion.
    Also unlike the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was disingenuously presented as an authorization to retaliate for an alleged attack on U.S. ships, members of Congress recognized that the Iraq resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation. Clinton had met with scores of constituents, arms control analysts, and Middle East scholars who informed her that the war was unnecessary, illegal, and would likely end in disaster.
    But she decided to support going to war anyway. She even rejected the advice of fellow Democratic senator Bob Graham that she read the full National Intelligence Estimate, which would have further challenged some of the Bush administration’s claims justifying the war.

    It was not, therefore, simply a “mistake,” or a momentary lapse of judgment. Indeed, in her own words, she cast her vote “with conviction.”



    She made a decision and it wasn't based on the will of the citizens, it wasn't based on the law, it wasn't based on facts.  She made a decision that started the Iraq War and all the destruction that followed -- all the destruction that continues.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Chairman Miller Statement on VA’s Inability to Dis..."
    "Chairman Miller Statement on Passing of VA Scandal..."
    "Hillary, what difference, at this point, does she ..."
    "When Hypocrite Met Hypocrite . . ."
    "Will Iowa deliver us from Hillary?"
    "Things are not good"
    "hillary is an anchor around our necks"
    "Again on embarrassing Chomsky"
    "Ralph finds his spine"
    "The Originals returns"
    "THE FINEST HOURS"
    "Hillary Clinton should be sentenced"
    "Hope and pray"
    "Diana, Jody and Carly"
    "THIS JUST IN! TOP SECRET AFTER ALL!"
    "What lie is left for Hillary now?"





    Posted by at No comments:

    Friday, January 29, 2016

    What lie is left for Hillary now?

    BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE
    IN A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S LEFT BITCH-BOIS BOB SOMERBY AND DAVID BROCK IN TEARS, IT TURNS OUT THERE'S NO MORE DENYING THAT CRANKY CLINTON'S E-MAILS CONTAINED STATE SECRETS.  THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTS:


     The State Department acknowledged for the first time Friday that “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton used while leading the agency, elevating the issue in the presidential campaign three days before the hotly contested Iowa caucuses.
    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY CLINTON INSISTED THAT THIS WAS PART OF "A VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY."

    WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE STATE DEPT. BEING RIGHT WING, CRANKY SNARLED, "YOUR JOB IS TO JOT DOWN WHAT I SAY AND REPEAT IT -- NOT TO QUESTION ME! WHEN I'M PRESIDENT, ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS ME WILL BE SENT TO GITMO!"

    FEARING THAT SHE MIGHT HAVE COME OFF TOO HARSH, CRANKY FOLLOWED THAT THREAT WITH A COY AND GIRLISH GIGGLE.



     FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    Turning to the US political scene, Academy Award winning actress Susan Sarandon is in the news.

    She's supporting US Senator Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.












  • 12 hours ago Waterloo, IA
    Spent some great time sticking labels on flyers at Waterloo HQ. Their commitment is so inspiring.
    Embedded image permalink
    227 retweets 537 likes



    • Bernie's chief rival for the nomination appears to be War Monger Hillary Clinton.  Jessica Chasmar (WASHINGTON TIMES) reports:
    Ms. Sarandon said Mrs. Clinton lost her support after voting for the Iraq War in 2002 as a New York senator.
    “The biggest foreign decision that had to be made in terms of foreign policy was whether or not to go into Iraq and go into war, and she failed that test,” she told the Daily Mail.
    Mrs. Clinton went on to be secretary of state, “but what has she done that we’re bragging about? How has she led?” Ms. Sarandon asked.



    She didn't lead on equality.

    Until 2013, she was a foe of marriage equality.  Long after others in elected office -- including US Vice President Joe Biden -- had taken a leadership role arguing for equality, Hillary was still opposing equality.

    Susan noted Hillary's cowardice on the issue of equality.  Matthew Clark (SUN TIMES) notes:

    “It is one thing to be for gay rights and gay marriage once everybody else is for it,” Sarandon said. “That’s not difficult.”
    After her speech, Sarandon spoke with the Daily Mail, expounding on the idea that Clinton hasn’t been a leader in the LGBT rights movement, despite receiving an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign.
    “There’s a number of issues where she has come around but she very clearly equivocated or was not there in the beginning.

    “She was not, and that’s a matter of record, and yes she has come around. But my point is, it’s great that she came around, but wouldn’t it be great to be a leader instead of a follower, especially if you’re going to hold the highest office in the land?”


    Let's close with Trina's "3 reasons we need to vote for Hillary Clinton"

     1) Overpopulation.

    The earth is small, the population is growing.

    A President Hillary Clinton would mean many, many wars and many, many, many deaths.

    Hillary is the cure.

    2) Lying will be accepted.

    Hillary will not just popularize lying, she'll make it socially acceptable.

    We'll no longer have to get on to our children for lying.

    If we do, they'll just tell us that they're acting "presidential."


    3) Equality is scary to some.

    Hillary will ensure that vast poverty continues in the United States -- if only to assist her Wall Street friends.


    Those are three reasons to vote for Hillary -- for some people.

    They are among the three reasons I will not vote for Hillary.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Another US death in Iraq"
    "Hillary our fairweather friend"
    "Richard Nixon in a pant suit"
    "Done with ARROW"
    "How troubled is Tom Cruise's career?"
    "Drop out, Hillary"
    "lily tomlin was so great"
    "SHADES OF BLUE Episode 4"
    "Good for Susan"
    "Paul Kantner"
    "Hillary's Haiti 'success'"
    "THIS IN! BECAUSE SHE HAD FAITH! FAITH! FAITH!"
    "Faith! Faith! Faith!"



    Posted by at 2 comments:

    Thursday, January 28, 2016

    Faith! Faith! Faith!

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


    PER THE BIG DAWG HIMSELF, TO UNDERSTAND CRANKY CLINTON LOOK TO HER FAITH.

    AND SHE DID HAVE FAITH . . .

    IN THE BIG DAWG.

    HOW'S THAT WORK OUT FOR HER?

    FLOWERS, JONES, LEWINSKY . . .

    AND THOSE ARE JUST THE CONFIRMED NAMES.

    CRANKY CLINTON, THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL GET FOOLED . . .

    REPEATEDLY.

    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    Oh, how the whores lie.

    I don't just mean the Bully Boy Bush whores.

    But I do remember a woman practically wetting herself while he was speaking on television and basically declaring him god.  I thought those Bush zombies were the worst the United States would ever see.

    But they had nothing on the Cult of St. Barack.

    And today I just don't have the stomach for either of these camps and their never ending lies and endless squabbles as they insist the other one is responsible for what's wrong in Iraq.

    There's more than enough blame to go around.

    NEWSHOUNDS was always a partisan front pretending to be about ethics and issues. The last eight years have not been easy on them.

    Because War Criminal _____ has returned to the public eye in a desperate bid for sordid coin, NEWSHOUNDS is suddenly interested in Iraq.

    Or 'interested' in Iraq.

    They don't give a damn about Iraq.

    Partisan whores on either side never gave a damn about Iraq.


    NEWSHOUNDS slams the ridiculous Sean Hannity (he's as ridiculous as NEWSHOUNDS itself) for blaming Iraq's problems on Barack Obama:


    Whatever that job was supposed to be after more than eight years of war. 
    More than 8 years?

    They're ending the Iraq War in 2011.
    How nice for them.
    In the real world, of course, the Iraq War has not ended.
    In the real world, of course, Barack's drawdown (there was no withdrawal) was followed by publicly sending US troops into Iraq.
    A process that continues.
     1 hour ago
    Four years after last homecoming, rocket battalion headed back to
    4 retweets6 likes



    The Iraq War has not ended.
    The US positioned one portion of the Shi'ites in charge.  They remain in Iraq to prop up that government.
    That's the reality.
    More reality, things are getting worse.
    Today, Kristina Wong (THE HILL) reports:
    The U.S. is headed toward deeper military involvement in Iraq, Syria and Libya to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to President Obama's former national security adviser Tom Donilon.  
    "My own judgment is ... we're going to become more deeply involved in both Iraq and Syria going forward here to address the challenge," Donilon said at a Politico event Monday evening. 
    Donilon, who served as national security adviser between 2010 and 2013, said U.S. forces are "going to have to become deeply involved" in helping Iraqi security forces retake Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Clinton avoids accountability, Colbert pimps"
    "Hillary D. Clinton -- the "D" stands for "disappointing""
    "Hillary's problems"
    "Tiny steps"
    "X-Files: thoughts and two complaints"
    "Shazam?"
    "Sometimes it is more than just race"
    "Hey, everybody, have fun again"
    "the naked gun"
    "3 reasons we need to vote for Hillary Clinton"
    "She's twisted"
    "THIS JUST IN! SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS OFFERING A CHARM OFFENSIVE!"
    "No more Ms. Nice Cranky"



    • Posted by at 1 comment:

    Tuesday, January 26, 2016

    No more Ms. Nice Cranky

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

    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O ONCE INFAMOUSLY TOLD CRANKY CLINTON "YOU'RE LIKABLE ENOUGH."

    APPARENTLY, HE WAS BEING OVERLY GENEROUS.

    IN IOWA LAST NIGHT, CRANKY CAME FACE TO FACE WITH THE SCORN AND HATRED THAT'S ALWAYS LURKED AROUND EVERY CORNER.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASSES, BOYS.  I'M DONE BEING NICE.  FROM THIS DAY FORWARD, CRANKY PLAYS BY HER RULES.  YOU HEAR ME?  MY RULES!  IF MY CHARM OFFENSIVE DIDN'T WORK, I'M LETTING THE BEAST OUT!"


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    Nothing changes.

    And Barack Obama's 'strategy' is not working.

    Which is why he's calling for even more of the same: More US troops in Iraq.


    Former US Ambassador John Bolton Tweets:







  • 4h4 hours ago
    There are roughly 3,500 Americans in already and some unknown number in and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter wants to send more.
    17 retweets 19 likes


    • There are over 3,5000 US troops in Iraq.  The 3,500 figure does not cover the US Special Forces.



    And even more US troops are being considered for Iraq.

    The US Defense Dept noted over the weekend:


     The United States potentially will make recommendations to position U.S. troops with Iraqi security forces in northern Iraq to support the next phase of isolating the key city of Mosul, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
    Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who met here with his French counterpart for talks focusing on the multinational effort against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, told reporters traveling with him that the U.S. troops would be placed where they can best support the Iraqi forces in the fight.
    "We're about winning. ... We want to have the Iraqis win," he said.

    The details are still being worked out, noted Dunford, who said he will make the recommendations to President Barack Obama based on what U.S. commanders and Iraqi security forces identify as the type of support the United States can provide in a plan to retake Mosul.



    Richard Sisk (MILITARY TIMES) reports:

    Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has again addressed the controversial issue of U.S. "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria, saying that more American troops would be deployed in an "enabling" role.
    "Boots on the ground? We have 3,500 boots on the ground" in Iraq and "we're looking for opportunities to do more," Carter told CNN's Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
    Carter acknowledged there are about 50 U.S. Special Forces troops serving as advisers in Syria to local forces opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in addition to the 3,500-3,600 American troops serving as trainers and advisors to the Iraqi Security Forces.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq: When the money's gone?"
    "Hejira"
    "Book her already"
    "Who supports her?"
    "Noam goes whoring"
    "Criminal Barack"
    "Woody's series"
    "Janet"
    "barbra"
    "Hillary's ever-changing story"
    "How they lie"
    "What's your favorite Jody Watley song?"

    "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY SAYS SHE'S GOT GAME!"
    "She'll say anything"







    Posted by at No comments:

    Sunday, January 24, 2016

    She'll say anything

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

     AFRICAN-AMERICANS KNOW CRANKY CLINTON'S NAME BUT SOME ARGUE THEY SHOULD KNOW HER GAME.


    ASKED ABOUT THAT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY INSISTED, "OH, YEAH, I GOT GAME.  I'M A BALLER.  ABSOLUTELY.  I AM WHATEVER THE KIDS NEED ME TO BE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO VOTE FOR ME."

    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    News?  Mustafa Habib (NIQASH) addresses news in Iraq:

    This kind of “news” is common on Iraqi social media. And it’s dangerous because for many Iraqis, social media websites, like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram to a lesser degree, have become a major source of political and security-related news. They do not trust mainstream media in Iraq, which is mostly considered to be partisan with much of it funded by political parties, religious bodies or other organizations pushing their own agenda. Many Iraqis say their most trusted source is word-of-mouth – relatives, friends, neighbours – so it makes sense that they would turn to social media, basically an expanded network of the latter, to get information they believe they can trust.



    The media is highly partisan in Iraq -- and elsewhere -- but on Iraq, if this is news to you, refer to Deborah Amos' paper "Confusion, Contradiction and Irony: The Iraqi Media in 2010" which documented the way so much of the media is controlled in Iraq.

    Mustafa Habib examines several stories that became popular on social media and influenced events in Iraq.

    We'll note one:

    Once a certain story gets picked up on Iraqi social media it is often rapidly disseminated further. The story about Sheikh Nimr’s execution was a prime example of this. It’s hard to know who posted the videos originally but it seems clear that the original user had an agenda.
    Under the guidance of advisors from open source verification experts at the investigative network, Bellingcat, a team of bloggers from the Iraqi Network for Social Media who are also the founders of a Facebook page called Fake Posts, as well as journalists from NIQASH, took a closer look at some of these falsified reports on social media.
    Using open source verification techniques like geolocation and reverse image search, the team quickly found that the first video, the one allegedly showing al-Nimr’s execution, had nothing to do with the Saudi cleric. The clip, watched by thousands of Iraqis, was actually the video of the execution of an Indonesian maid in Saudi Arabia and it was four years old.
    The other video that supposedly showed al-Nimr’s body being thrown out of a helicopter after his execution was also something else: It was a video showing a member of Saudi police force falling out of a helicopter, most likely to his death, in 2013.


    The original user had an agenda?

    True.

    But let's not confine coverage to Iraq.

    FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS and other ridiculous outlets -- front groups posing as news outlets -- certainly had an agenda as they suddenly discovered executions.

    As was noted on Arabic media, FPIF was silent when the Iraqi government was killing the LGBT community members, when the Interior Ministry went into schools calling for violence against LGBTs, but suddenly it was interested in fairness.

    It was noted that FPIF was silent when Sunni women and girls were wrongly imprisoned in Iraq and then beaten and/or raped in prison.

    It was silent as Iraqi forces terrorized and killed Sunnis.

    But FPIF and others were wetting their panties in public and beating themselves with chains over the execution of one Shi'ite cleric -- while ignoring the others executed in the same batch of executions.

    Let's never pretend that some elements of the Iraqi media are the only ones with an agenda.


    Tuesday, the United Nations issued a report on violence in Iraq. As we documented in that day's snapshot, many news outlets and 'news' outlets were pushing an agenda and not actually reporting.  As we pointed out:
    The Islamic State is a terrorist organization.
    Documenting their abuses should be easy and something anyone can do without any great ethical challenge.
    The United Nations report notes consistent patterns of abuse by the Iraqi government.
    That needs to be spotlighted, it needs to be front and center.
    You do not excuse away a government committing crimes against its own civilians.
    You do not act as though that's nothing or that it's a sidebar.
    It is the prime story.
    Again, the Islamic State is a terrorist organization.
    As such it commits crimes against people -- that's what makes it a terrorist organization.
    The Iraqi government is supposed to serve (and protect) all the Iraqi people.
    When it instead targets its own people, that is news.
    The failure to properly report this goes a long way towards the growing divide between Arabs and others.  Arabs watched from 2010 on forward as the Iraqi government openly targeted Sunnis.  They saw little to no objection to this persecution.
    The United Nations puts out a report that documents crimes by a terrorist organization (ISIS) and crimes against Sunnis by the Iraqi government and the western media again ignores the crimes of the Iraqi government or offers a brief sotto voice aside.
    This is not acceptable.
    It is silencing those suffering at the hands of the Iraqi government.
    It is saying that Arabs are disposable and crimes against them can be ignored.



    Friday, Aisha Maniar covered the report at TRUTHOUT:


    The assault on the Iraqi people comes from all sides: ISIS, the Iraqi government and its security forces and related militias, coalition airstrikes and armed gangs cashing in on the prevailing state of anarchy. The UN report concedes that "The violence suffered by civilians in Iraq remains staggering," but with more than half of the report dedicated to atrocities carried out by ISIS, the Iraqi government gets off lightly.
    A number of the human rights abuses ascribed to ISIS could equally be attributed to government security forces or related militias. For example, both ISIS and the government's popular mobilization units - mainly Shiite militias drafted into the fight against ISIS - have been open about their recruitment and use of child soldiers. In the latter case, not mentioned in the report, the use of child combatants could have serious implications for the United States, as these militias fall under the umbrella of an army that is trained and supported by the US. UNICEF expressed its concerns in June 2015, and called for "urgent measures" to be taken by the Iraqi government to protect children, including criminalizing the recruitment of children, and "the association of children with the Popular Mobilization Forces."

    The report states that "systematic and widespread violations and abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law" committed by ISIS could amount to "war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide." Others, including Human Rights Watch, have suggested that Iraqi government-backed militias in the fight against ISIS may have also committed war crimes. Kurds too have been accused of potential war crimes. Indeed, all parties to the conflict have committed crimes against humanity against the Iraqi people, and there must be no impunity for any of them. A report focused on human rights and the protection of civilians should not be politically biased toward any party.


    Good for TRUTHOUT but let's not pretend that this is the dominant view the press is taking.  Even now, the UN reports is covered as 'agenda reporting' with outlets using it for war propaganda.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Haider's failing? Who's signing the report card?"
    "X-Files"
    "SHADES OF BLUE shocker"
    "Scandal"
    "let them eat cake?"
    "Avoid WHERE TO INVADE NEXT"
    "Jonathan Demme, stop talking s**t"
    "Live in a glass closet, don't throw stones"
    "He writes books?"
    "NPR's vicious attack on Stacy Dash"
    "Thoughts worth amplifying"
    "The selling of war"
    "THIS JUST IN! SHE LIVES TO CACKLE ANOTHER DAY!"
    "Clinton doesn't like transparency any more than she likes accountability"




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