Don't call him king!

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

RESPONDING TO CRITICISM TODAY FROM U.S. HOUSE REP. JEB HENSARLING THAT HE WAS ACTING AS IF HE WAS "KING BARACK," FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O INSISTED THIS WAS JUST NOT TRUE.

"KINGS ARE ALL SO OLD AND WRINKLY," BARRY O INSISTED, "I'M FAR TOO YOUNG.  CALL ME A PRINCE! OR AT LEAST A PRINCESS!  I'M SO PRETTY!"

AS BARRY O SCAMPERED OFF, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST INSISTED, "YOU CAN'T REPORT ANY OF THIS!  NOT A WORD!"




FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Monday in Berkeley, there was a protest which included a chant, "Yemini lives matter, Afghan lives matter, Iraqi lives matter, Pakistan lives matter!"

We're noting the protest mainly because Tuesday's Flashpoints (KPFA) featured a report on the protest that Dennis Bernstein and others with Flashpoint did.  The protest was at UC Berkeley School of Law.


Stephanie Tang: The Bush regime opened this torture chamber at Guantanamo not just to imprison captives after 9/11 as it expanded it's military adventures into the Middle East.  The Bush regime opened Guantanamo  to send a message to the world that the US could operate with impunity, outside the norms of international law.  Obama made his first promise upon taking office that he would close this immoral hellhole of a prison. He's had 6 years to close it.  He has had 6 years to punish those who ordered the torture and forever repudiate indefinite detention and secret renditions as American policy.  But Obama has done none of this.  We are here from the World Cant Wait, the National Lawyers Guild, CodePink and other people who care about justice, who stand up for justice and we demand the closure of Guantanamo immediately We demand the accountability that can only mean prosecuting the war criminals from George Bush and Dick Cheney on down.  This is the only way that torture will not become a permanent part of the arsenal of the US power spreading around the world.  Torture is a war crime it is never acceptable or legal under any circumstances. This is clear in international law and US law.  The third reason we're here today is particular to the University of California and it's law school  at Boalt Hall.  There is a War Criminal on the faculty here. John Yoo is a tenured professor. He wrote the memos that enabled the Bush-Cheney regime to establish their formal official torture program. John Yoo continues to publicly promote that program, defined it and, therefore, he is still doing harm.


The report also featured an alumni informing the dean's office, "I came here in 1959 because there was a wonderful man on the faculty named Frank Newman, a great supporter of human rights became dean and became a justice and he would never permit someone like John Yoo to speak in front of his class -- let alone become a professor.  And I think that it's important  to understand that the reputation of this law school is based on people like Frank Newman and that the reputation, if it's going to be based on people like John Yoo people aren't going to come here."


Moving to Iraq,  Ben Ariel (Israel National News) reports that Iraq has donated $28 million to the Arab League for the Palestinians.  In response, the following Tweet was posted:

1. Ariên ‏@kurduene 9h9 hours ago

   Iraq's in the middle of a war - weapons are tight, KRG budget is low & they're playing mother Teresa. Good call Iraq.

   
   

   

   
   

   Expand 0 replies 14 retweets 14 favorites
   

And this Tweet as well:

1. Hamo ‏@KekHamo 8h8 hours ago

   The Saudis & Gulf states have enough money, let them pay for this! Iraq has refugees who are freezing to death! 

1. Hamo ‏@KekHamo 8h8 hours ago

   The Saudis & Gulf states have enough money, let them pay for this! Iraq has refugees who are freezing to death!

   
   

   

   
   

   Expand 0 replies 22 retweets 13 favorites
   

What are they Tweeting about?

16 children have died in Iraq from exposure to the cold.  Al-Shorfa reports that they died in central and northern Iraq according to Iraq's human rights commission member Masroor Aswad who couldn't wait to harness a tragedy by claiming all the dead children were homeless as a result of the Islamic State.  A claim, of course, that he can't back up nor can the press truly investigate.

Of course, that reality didn't stop the US State Dept from presenting a claim as fact and spreading it.

Meanwhile, USAID wants to trumpet, "USG agencies have supported the Iraq humanitarian response with nearly $218.4 million in FY 2014 and FY 2015 funding. This includes nearly $10.2 million in FY 2015 assistance from USAID/OFDA for programs providing life-saving assistance to vulnerable Iraqis."


16 children are dead and for the governments of Iraq and the United States, this is 'wonderful' because they can use it to attack the Islamic State.

So eager are they to use these deaths, they fail to factor in how it looks to the rest of the world.

As the Tweets note, Iraq's got plenty of millions to give . . . to those outside of Iraq.  While Iraqi children freeze to death, Haider al-Abadi cuts a charity check for $28 million.

And the US?

$218.4 million in humanitarian aid . . . spread out over the last fiscal year and the current one.  So that's roughly $109 million a year.

But Pierre Bienaime (Business Insider) notes, "According to Defense News, the US donated $300 million in military equipment to Iraq in 2014, and will deliver 6 M1 Abrams tanks and 50 humvees to the Baghdad government at no cost."  And that's just one aspect of the millions and millions of military aid the US government provided Iraq with.  But only $109 million to help the refugees.

The US government funds violence full out but when it comes to humanitarian causes they play cheap and the world sees it.

Despite this, they have the gall to attempt to use the deaths of 16 children -- deaths that could have been prevented had the US government or the Iraqi government not been so cheap and shown so little value?

They don't only fail to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, they spark a global outrage as they make clear how little value they place on human lives.







RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Suicide prevention bill, spearheaded by IAVA, rein..."
"Barack sings the same old song"
"Iraq"
"Don't ever take advice from Edwin Lyngar"
"revenge men?"
"Benched gets the axe"
"Bathing?"
"The unhappiness with President Obama's plan"
"Tweet of the week"
"Not excited about NBC's new sitcoms"
"D'Angelo"
"Taylor Swift"
"Lot of time to kill"
"THIS JUST IN! BUSY BARRY!"

Lot of time to kill

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O HAS BEEN SENDING U.S. TROOPS INTO IRAQ SINCE JUNE AND HAS BEEN BOMBING IRAQ SINCE AUGUST BUT HE STILL HASN'T GOTTEN AROUND TO GETTING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL FOR HIS ACTIONS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O EXPLAINED HE HAD A LOT ON HIS PLATE, "THERE'S PHONE CALLS AND PHOTO POSING AND LIKE NAPS.  SOMETIMES I JUST TAKE A NAP.  CHRIS HILL SHOWED ME HOW TO JUST PUSH YOUR CHAIR AWAY FROM YOUR DESK AND YOU CAN HOP UNDER THERE AND GRAB A FEW ZZZS.  OR MAYBE I WANT TO STREAM THE LATEST EPISODE OF 'NASHVILLE' ON MY PHONE AND I WANT TO WATCH THAT.  OR LIKE I SEE JOE COMING -- YOU KNOW, JOE BIDEN?  AND I'M LIKE, 'I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO HIM,' YOU KNOW?  SO I GRAB MY PHONE AND I'M LIKE, 'YES, YES, HOW ARE YOU, PUTIN?  UH-HUH.  RIGHT.  UKRAINE.  YES. . . .'  YOU KNOW JUST TO AVOID JOE.  AND LIKE 1 TIME, I HAD TO DO THAT FOR 30 MINUTES BEFORE JOE FINALLY LEFT THE OVAL OFFICE.  THAT WAS LIKE A HALF-HOUR OF MY DAY, YOU KNOW?  SO STUFF LIKE KEEPS ME BUSY."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Today, Chris Hayes (MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes) noted, "France's lower house of Parliament voted 488 to one to extend French airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.  488 to one.  I recognize those kinds of margins -- the sort of margin the PATRIOT Act passed by and the authorization for the use of military force to invade Afghanistan."

Chris Hayes was grouping fear based decisions (and argued in the program that the answer needed now is not more violence but more thought and examination).  Of the fear, Al Jazeera America notes:

The vote came one week after the most deadly attacks on civilians in France in decades. On Jan. 8, Ahmed Coulibaly, a man claiming allegiance to ISIL, killed a policewoman and then took several hostages at a kosher grocery store near Paris. Coulibaly and four hostages were killed during a raid by police. That attack was linked to one conducted on Jan. 7 by Said and Cherif Kouachi, two brothers whom Coulibaly had known for years, who killed 12 people at a newspaper office and claimed that they were affiliated with Al-Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen.


Chris Hayes is far from the only one calling out blind fear.  At Brookings, Daniel L. Byman and Jeremy Shapiro also try to slow the race to fear:

Despite these fears and the real danger that motivates them, the Syrian and Iraqi foreign fighter threat can easily be exaggerated. Previous cases and information emerging from Syria suggest several mitigating effects that may reduce—but hardly eliminate—the potential terrorist threat from foreign fighters who have gone to Syria. Those mitigating factors include:
• Many die, blowing themselves up in suicide attacks or perishing quickly in firefights with opposing forces.
• Many never return home, but continue fighting in the conflict zone or at the next battle for jihad.
• Many of the foreign fighters quickly become disillusioned, and a number even return to their home country without engaging in further violence.
• Others are arrested or disrupted by intelligence services. Indeed, becoming a foreign fighter—particularly with today’s heavy use of social media—makes a terrorist far more likely to come to the attention of security services.

The danger posed by returning foreign fighters is real, but American and European security services have tools that they can successfully deploy to mitigate the threat. These tools will have to be adapted to the new context in Syria and Iraq, but they will remain useful and effective.


If people were a little more level headed, maybe they'd question US President Barack Obama's so-called 'plan' for Iraq?

Al Arabiya News notes US Senator John McCain told CNN that the US needed to provide Iraq with "more boots on the ground" and "I mean intelligence. I mean forward air controllers. I mean trainers. I mean more air assets. I mean across the board an increase."

Well that's a thought.  There should be others.

Like, before any other moves are made, how about looking at what's happening?

Barack said back in June that the crises in Iraq required a political solution.

But the White House has done damn little to encourage any political solutions.

They have allowed Iraq to grow ever closer to Iran.  What does that mean?

Scott Peterson (Christian Science Monitor) explains one meaning:

The Iranian strategy has resurrected Iraq's Shiite militias and deployed them effectively against IS on some front lines, those same militia contributed to tens of thousands of deaths at the peak of Iraq’s sectarian battles from 2006-2008.
Officials of Iraq’s Sunni minority say human rights abuses by the Shiite militias are as rampant now as they were 5 years ago. And they grate at the number of banners strung up with Iranian revolutionary slogans – against Israel, for example, or to support religious pilgrims – along with images of Iran’s previous and current supreme leaders, Ayatollahs Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei.

This picks up on the report Amnesty International issued in November:


Shi’a militias, supported and armed by the government of Iraq, have abducted and killed scores of Sunni civilians in recent months and enjoy total impunity for these war crimes, said Amnesty International in a new briefing published today.
Absolute Impunity: Militia Rule in Iraq provides harrowing details of sectarian attacks carried out by increasingly powerful Shi’a militias in Baghdad, Samarra and Kirkuk, apparently in revenge for attacks by the armed group that calls itself the Islamic State (IS). Scores of unidentified bodies have been discovered across the country handcuffed and with gunshot wounds to the head, indicating a pattern of deliberate execution-style killings.
“By granting its blessing to militias who routinely commit such abhorrent abuses, the Iraqi government is sanctioning war crimes and fuelling a dangerous cycle of sectarian violence that is tearing the country apart. Iraqi government support for militia rule must end now,” said Donatella Rovera, Amnesty International’s Senior Crisis Response Adviser.
The fate of many of those abducted by Shi'a militias weeks and months ago remains unknown. Some captives were killed even after their families had paid ransoms of $80,000 and more to secure their release. 

That same month, Human Rights Watch's Tirana Hassan reported on the Shi'ite militias for Foreign Policy:

The Khorasani Brigade is a relatively recent addition to the network of Shiite militias in Iraq -- and despite a similar sounding name, has no connection to the Khorasan Group, the alleged al Qaeda-affiliated organization that was the target of U.S. airstrikes in Syria in September. The Khorasani Brigade is just one of dozens of similar militias that are essentially running their own show in parts of the country. These Shiite militias are supplied with weapons and equipment from the central government in Baghdad, which is now being assisted by a U.S.-led military alliance in its fight against the Islamic State.
These militias' actions will only exacerbate Iraq's existing sectarian tensions. The country is no stranger to sectarian violence: Its Shiite population suffered for decades under the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein, and after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 the country spiraled into a cycle of revenge violence, culminating in a bloody civil war in 2006 and 2007. Many accused the largely autocratic rule of former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of fueling sectarian flames.
While the Iraqi central government has virtually no formal authority over the militias, who act as a law unto themselves, some key politicians in Baghdad have strong alliances to individual militias. In October, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi appointed Mohammed Salem al-Ghabban -- a prominent member of the Badr Organization, a Shiite political group that controls one of the largest and most infamous militias -- as interior minister. 

Despite being almost completely unaccountable to any official ministry, the Shiite militias have been tasked by the government with a key role in the war against the Islamic State. Yet what we saw in Yengija laid bare the costs of relying on these groups. Beyond the main road, an entire neighborhood of two-story homes was razed and flattened, with concrete slab roofs heaped atop piles of rubble. Personal belongings, children's toys, and furniture peeked out from under the debris, a poignant reminder of the Sunni Arab families who, until recently, had lived there. All these families had fled in August when the militia started battling the Islamic State fighters in the surrounding area.


So Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Christian Science Monitor know the current government run by new prime minister Haider al-Abadi is allowing Shi'ites to target and kill Sunnis but the White House doesn't?

The White House is just completely unaware of what's going on?


There are people being injured and being killed, targeted, and the White House just keeps backing Haider al-Abadi and looking the other way.

Seems to me Barack did that before, didn't he?

Oh, yeah, with Nouri al-Maliki.

He looked the other way repeatedly.

How'd that work out again?

It took Iraq to the precipice.

Where's the political solution?




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Mr. Uday Al-Zaidi -- Appeal of Extreme Urgen..."
"Clay Hunt SAV Act, spearheaded by IAVA, now heads ..."
"Is the US State Dept breaking the law?"
"It's all a fake out"
"2 of a kind"
"Which deaths matter?"
"revenge - the new characters"
"The Bad Show"
"Nikita"
"Art exhibit"
"Iraq"
"We know where he stands"
"The Saudi Connection"
"Hope never dies!"
"THIS JUST IN! HE STILL HAS HOPE!"

Hope never dies!

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

IN THE MOST RECENT REUTERS  POLL (1/5/15) ONLY 38.5% OF AMERICANS APPROVE (STRONLY, SOMEWHAT OR LEAN) OF FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O'S JOB PERFORMANCE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT TODAY, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "38.5%?  THAT'S STILL ENOUGH TO MOVE IN TO THE FINALS, RIGHT?  I CAN STILL NAIL THIS!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Don't you hate lying pieces of trash?



Maybe they're not liars in all cases.  I seriously question the sanity of The Obama Diary.

They're apparently too busy drooling over the cock of US President Barack Obama to form actual thoughts beyond "Must wrap lips around."

At Third, we called the idiots out for their inability to get that Bully Boy Bush going to his ranch-ette in Crawford, Texas wasn't the problem, going to war on Iraq was.

Today The Obama Diary is yet again lost.

1. TheObamaDiary.com ‏@TheObamaDiary 10h10 hours ago

   .@JakeTapper spent longer investigating Sen Obama's smoking than he did questioning Iraq war

1. TheObamaDiary.com ‏@TheObamaDiary 9h9 hours ago

   .@JakeTapper spent longer investigating Sen Obama's smoking than he did questioning Iraq war http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/04/08/jake-tappers-smoke-detector-goes-off-at-abc-new/143142 …

   
   

   

   
   

   Expand 0 replies 67 retweets 30 favorites
   

The link?

It doesn't say that.

The Obama Diary apparently hopes you're so stupid -- the way they are -- that you'll just take their word for it.

The Obama Diary is the worst of our side (the left).  A cheap whorish thug that thinks it can lie and get away with it.

They're attacking Jake Tapper today for a reason we'll get to in just a second.

But let's deal with their charge first.

Media Matters in 2007 and 2008 whined about a lot of reporters.  Jake Tapper was one.

The link goes to a whine about Jake saying Barack was still smoking despite Barack saying he had quit.

As most now know, once in the White House, Barack was still smoking.

Jake was actually correct.

And Media Matters wrote a lengthy post suggesting he was wrong and a lengthy post to tell you how trivial the topic -- that, again, they wrote a lengthy post on -- was.

The Obama Diary thinks this establishes something.

All it establishes is just how stupid and whorish The Obama Diary is.  A certain 'sports' commentator in Chicago is equally stupid.  He slams Jake today by slamming CNN's Iraq coverage in 2002 and 2003 -- Jake Tapper didn't work for them then.

Where did Jake Tapper work in 2002 and 2003?

Salon.

Salon didn't do investigative journalism.  It wasn't the sewer it is today where Joan Walsh regularly slimes people and calls them "un-American" because she doesn't like them.  But it didn't do investigative journalism. Didn't have the budget for it.  It was columns and opinion pieces and interviews.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"CNN's Jake Tapper offers some thoughts"
"ObamaCare realities"
"The Good Wife"
"Will the Iraq Inquiry report be released soon?"
"revenge - does margaux serve any real purpose?"
"Iraqi refugees"
"He forgot his job again"
"Fake Ass Elizabeth Warren offers more fake assery"
"Who watches that stupid Jane The Virgin?"
"Janelle Hobson, shut up and shove your victimism feminism up your ass"
"A popular rumor in Iraq"
"BBC backs government – shock"
"He had other things to do"
"THIS JUST IN! HE WAS REAL BUSY!"

He had other things to do

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O FAILED TO GO TO PARIS FOR THE UNITY MARCH IN RESPONSE TO LAST WEEK'S TERRORIST ATTACK.

BUT WHITE HOUSE INSIDERS TELL THESE REPORTERS BARRY O HAD "VERY IMPORTANT TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITIES WHICH PRESENTED HIM FROM ATTENDING."

1) GET A BIKINI WAS -- IMPORTANT TO DO BECAUSE CONTINUED TERRORIST ATTACKS COULD PREVENT HIM FROM GETTING ONE LATER

2) WATCH THE GOLDEN GLOBES -- HE BET BIG IN THE WHITE HOUSE POOL ON COLIN HANKS -- $5 -- TO WIN BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A SERIES, TV MOVIE OR MINI-SERIES.

3) HE HAD TO GET 500 PENNIES IN CASE HE LOST TO SCREW WITH THE WINNERS.

4) HE HAD TO GET A PLASTIC BAGGIE TO PUT THE PENNIES IN.

5) HE WANTED TO WORK ON HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH SHOULD COLIN HANKS WIN (HE DIDN'T) AND INCLUDE AN AGGRESSIVE GESTURE.

6) HE NEEDED THREE HOURS OF TRAINING WITH BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT PATTI WOOD ON HOW TO MAKE AN AGGRESSIVE GESTURE.

7) HE WASN'T SURE HE'D PROGRAMMED TIVO CORRECTLY AND NEEDED THE SECRET SERVICE AND THEN F.C.C. COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE "GIRLS" WOULD BE RECORDED.

8) HE NEEDED SNACKS FOR THE GOLDEN GLOBES AND, AFTER, WATCHING "GIRLS."





FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Cher weighs in on Iraq:

Cher Verified account ‏@cher

@patsyindecline I Understand.We Did Great Damage,By Invading IRAQ,But As Of Now"SORRY"Won't GET ITWe Need2 Mend Fences W/Those Who R Open

• Retweets 21
• Favorites 56
• 

6:55 AM - 9 Jan 2015

The damage was done and the damage continues.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes 139 violent deaths in Iraq yesterday with 21 more injured.


How is Barack's bombing campaign (passed off as a 'plan') reducing violence?


As we ponder that, let's move over to note how it's always interesting what gets attention and what doesn't.  Everyone and their dog (that would be the Christian Science Monitor) weighed in on the poll regarding the number of Republicans who believed (wrongly) that WMD (one of the false reasons given for the illegal war on Iraq) were discovered there.  We covered the poll in Wednesday's snapshot but we covered it: "32% of Democrats in the US and 51% of Republicans wrongly believe WMDs were discovered in Iraq."  Though many outlets used the poll -- which has issues that should question some of the validity of the results -- to do another slam book post on Republicans and Fox News, that 32% of Democrats believe the lie is telling.

A few wanted to insist that the bad New York Times article was responsible.

No.

One report can't do that.

Not even if it's amplified.

The issue is no one was held accountable.  When no one's held accountable, the message is no one needs to be held accountable because no one was wrong.

You go into Jack In The Box and order fries, walk out the door, look in the sack and discover they gave you onion rings, you can walk back in and they will take accountability for their mistake and give you the fries you ordered.

One of the reasons given for the 'need' to go to war on Iraq was that Iraq had WMD and was seeking out Betty Crocker Yellow Cake Uranium or some such nonsense.

And these reasons have not led to accountability.

Except maybe for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

Joe is the former US Ambassador to Iraq who exposed Bully Boy Bush's lie about the yellow cake uranium and he was held accountable for that truth telling by the BBB administration which went on to illegally out his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA operative.  (Thanks to his father, Poppy Bush, it is illegal for a US government official or employee to out a CIA operative.  It is not a crime for others to do so.  Which is why columnist Robert Novak committed no crime -- a fact that David Corn -- in his never ending eagerness to suck the phallus of the CIA -- frequently was confused over.)

So Joe and Valerie suffered.

Cindy Sheehan and others across the US suffered as they saw their family members perish in the Iraq War or return home wounded.

The American people -- for many generations -- are suffering -- and will suffer -- as a result of the financial debt the illegal war has created.

But despite all the suffering and consequences being doled out to various people, the ones who lied were never held accountable.

Colin Powell is treated as 'respectable' by the media despite his public lying.  He's far from the only one.

And let's not forget that his cuddle buddy, Lawrence Wilkerson, was given free reign by the media (especially MSNBC and Democracy Now!) to rewrite history and present Colin Powell -- human filth since Vietnam -- as a victim and a truthful person.

When no one's held accountable for lying, when there are no prosecutions for deceiving the American people and starting an illegal war, people will assume the lies were true.

But, as usual, that was too much for the media in this country to address.

Heaven forbid we address the glaring lack of accountability.

And heaven forbid we address a real poll -- one whose methodology raises no questions.

See there were two polls that had to do with Iraq that were released this week.

And if you wanted to slam book Republicans and Fox News, you focused on the questionable one (and generally ignored the 32% of Democrats who believed the lie of WMD found).

And if you support war, you'll continue to ignore the other poll.

57% of Americans oppose sending US troops into combat in Iraq.  (Yes, they are already in combat.  Dropping bombs from planes is combat and, throughout the US Air Force's history, people have long received decorations for those combat missions.)

57% oppose.

That's a majority.

That, however, wasn't big news this week.

A search of even Antiwar.com doesn't even turn up a report or citation.

The poll was conducted by the Brookings Institute -- a centrist organization not known for pacifist sentiment.

It was released on Thursday.

I missed it until a friend at Brookings asked why I wasn't noting it.

Antiwar.com probably missed it for the same reason.

But what about the MSM which usually can't stop presenting Brookings as a "trusted voice."




RECOMMENDED:  "CNN's Jake Tapper offers some thoughts"
"Hejira"
"Post Pop -- uncovering the tension among Soviet bl..."
"After the Movie: From Combat Films to Community Mo..."
"Al-Sweady inquiry clears soldiers - but more tortu..."
"Hanan Ashrawi (Francis A. Boyle)"
"Clay Hunt SAV Act Re-Introduced in House (IAVA)"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Senator Murray and Isakson get results"
"Paralyzed Veterans of America's Veterans Benefits ..."
"Happy New Year from the Zed Collective"
"The CIA infects and soils the left (thanks, Robert..."

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: A majority of Americans oppose US troop...
• TV: Jane The Iron Maiden
• Roundtable
• Why that tired ass won't sit down
• Tweet of the week
• This week's playlist
• Al-Sweady inquiry clears soldiers - but more tortu...
• Murray and Isakson work together to protect vetera...
• Post Pop -- uncovering the tension among Soviet bl...
• 
  

"Ms. magazine, why I'm not laughing"
"The Originals"
"The Taxer"
"revenge tonight on abc"
"About that Beetlejuice sequel . . ."
"The Iraq Inquiry report"
"Idiot of the week"
"New apartments"
"Removing caked on food from pyrex dishes"
"It should be Black Canary"
"Super Bowl musical acts"
"Where's the Iraq report?"
"Arming who?"

"What about Barack?"

"War Hawk down?"

"Blair"

"Iraqi female nurses"

"But he should"

"unicef in iraq"

"Christians in Iraq"

"Arming who?"

"Only Barry can attack the press"

"THIS JUST IN! HE WANTS TO BE THE ONLY ONE TO ATTACK THE PRESS!"

Only Barry can attack the press

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS CONDEMNED THIS WEEK'S ATTACK ON A MEDIA OUTLET IN FRANCE.

AFTER MAKING HIS STATEMENT, BARRY WAS HEARD INSISTING, "ONLY I CAN ATTACK MEDIA OUTLETS AND REPORTERS!  I'M REALLY GOING AFTER JAMES RISEN NOW!"

A GLEEFUL MEDEA BENJAMIN CLAPPED HER HANDS WILDLY AS SHE PEED HER PANTS RIGHT ON THE SPOT AND SAID, "WE LOVE YOU BARRY! WE DO!  WE REALLY REALLY DO!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with a new survey that has a number of outlets in a tizzy.  Of Fairleigh Dickinson University's Public Mind Poll's Iraq section, the university notes

Overall, 42 percent of Americans believe that U.S. forces found active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. Republicans are more likely to hold this belief than Democrats: fifty-one percent of Republicans think it’s “probably” or “definitely” true that an active program was found after the 2003 invasion, with 14 percent saying that it was definitely true. Still, large portions of other groups think that the WMD program, a major part of the justification for the invasion, was actually found, including 32 percent of Democrats. 

The findings appear to trouble and confuse RT, The Week, The Hill and more.

I have questions regarding the sample as well as their margin of error (which honestly looks rounded and not really accurate) but assuming the results are correct, why is it a surprise?

February 5, 2003, Colin Powell didn't just go before the United Nations and insist that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, he lied.  He knowingly lied.  He presented evidence he knew was false.

So since that time, Collie The Blot Powell has been ridiculed by the media and treated with the disdain that a known liar whose lies resulted in the deaths of millions will be treated, right?

Wrong.

Colin Powell is still considered, by the media, to be a respected and trusted person.

He's far from alone.  As Peter Hart (FAIR -- link is video) noted in June, "It's 2003 all over again, as Iraq 'experts' who promoted the 2003 invasion are back on TV screens offering expert analysis about what to do next."

Justin Raaimondo (Antiwar.com) addressed the issue in March of 2013 noting:

Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, the war criminals are still at large. Saddam Hussein is dead and buried, but the cabal that lied us into war is still around – and not only that, they are mocking us from their podiums in the media, justifying and obscuring their crimes. Here is former Bush speechwriter David Frum declaring he was right all along – if only:
"If we’d found the WMD, it would have been different. If we’d kept better order in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam, it would have been different. If more Iraqis had welcomed the invasion as we expected, it would have been different. If the case for the war had been argued in a less contrived and predetermined way, it would have been different."
Ah, "but it wasn’t different," continues Frum: "Those of us who were involved – in whatever way – bear the responsibility." So what have been the consequences suffered by Frum – as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed and maimed, their lives and country destroyed? What price has Mr. "Axis of Evil" paid that is in any way comparable to that exacted from the 5,000 Americans killed and tens of thousands horribly wounded? Why none, of course. There he is, on CNN, in the Daily Beast, pontificating in his new role as a "moderate" Republican.

There is a difference between being wrong and lying.

Anyone who takes a position has a chance of being wrong.  

Liars should be banned by the media.  Colin Powell lied.  That's documented and don't believe his little fluffer Lawrence Wilkerson.  Powell was presented with false charges to make to the UN and he pushed back on some but agreed to go with others.  This has been documented repeatedly, you can refer to FAIR or to the Los Angeles Times, for the Times start with Greg Miller's July 15, 2004 report entitled "Flaws Cited in Powell's U.N. Speech on Iraq."

He lied.

The mainstream media should have rebuked him long ago instead of courting him and presenting him as an expert.

As for those wrong?

No one should be banned from the public discourse for being wrong.  Hopefully, they will at least admit they were wrong but even if they don't we'll all be wrong at some point in our lives -- multiple times (especially me).  

But those wrong on big issues?  They should be brought on far less by Sunday chat shows and balanced out with voices who were right.

That's for the mainstream media -- the broadcast networks, CNN, most newspapers, etc.

For what's supposed to be the left media?

The periodicals like The Progressive, The Nation, In These Times, Mother Jones, various Pacifica Radio programs, etc?

They might, in the interest of a wide ranging debate, allow those who were wrong to participate but as guests.  You do not hire these people,  you do not give them a regular platform.

Mother Jones presents itself as left -- in its latest incarnation, it has become nothing but a partisan organ for the Democratic Party -- and as a voice of truth.

But when Mother Jones was looking for someone to hire to write bits and pieces for the mag's online site, it didn't go with Cindy Sheehan.  Cindy was a national name and someone who stood for peace and stood against the Iraq War.  Mother Jones didn't pursue her.

Or take Ann Wright.  The former army colonel was serving in the State Dept when Powell was lying.  And her response?  She resigned from the diplomatic corps.  Her resignation letter ended up all over the internet.

Mother Jones didn't pursue her to write for them.

No, when they had a slot open, they went with Kevin Drum who supported and cheerleaded the illegal war.

When the media -- mainstream or in the case of Mother Jones alleged left wing media -- refuses to hold liars and war mongers accountable, they send the impression that this filth was correct, that those of us who said no to war were wrong.

The filth should have been ostracized, publicly humiliated.

Instead, their opinions continue to be treated as important and worthwhile.

Over a million Iraqis are dead because of these liars and their opinions.

But there are no consequences.

 And when even Mother Jones is too damn trashy to draw a line, what is America to believe?

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Why things are not getting better in Iraq"
"daniel"
"Ant-Man"
"Be thankful for Michael Douglas"
"Savannah Guthrie's an idiot"
"If ABC World News is going to report on the cartoon, they need to show the cartoon"
"Uh, welcome back?"
"Where is the report?"
"Amal Clooney is not even plain"
"'Activist' Fonda"
"About Russell Crowe"
"He never shuts up"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT AN OPINION ON EVERYTHING!"

He never shuts up

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O AND PROFESSIONAL BUSYBODY BARRY O HAS HAD TO WEIGH IN AGAIN -- THIS TIME ON A CALL IN A FOOTBALL GAME.

WHEN ASKED IF NO ONE HAD EVER TOLD THE BITCH TO MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL JOSH EARNEST DECLARED HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAD.

ASKED IF BARRY O WAS WORKING ON THE ECONOMY, A NERVOUS JOSH EARNEST TRIED TO INTEREST REPORTERS IN BARRY O'S THOUGHTS ON TIDDLYWINKS AND JACKS.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Starting with today's Defense Dept press briefing at the Pentagon moderated by spokesperson Rear Adm John Kirby.


Q: Admiral, when you said in response to Nancy's question with numbers, that hundreds of -- we know that hundreds of ISIL fighters have been killed, can you be more specific on that number? And also, can you give us any idea of civilians killed in the airstrike campaign?


KIRBY: I cannot give you a more specific number of -- of how many ISIL fighters. We just know it's hundreds: several hundred. It's not --

I'd like to make two points. First of all, we don't have the ability to -- to count every nose that we shwack [sic]. Number two, that's not the goal. That's not the goal. The less of these guys that are out there, certainly that's the better, but the goal is to degrade and destroy their capabilities.

And we're not getting into an issue of body counts. And that's why I don't have that number handy. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't have asked my staff to give me that number before I came out here. It's simply not a relevant figure.

On civilian casualties, what I know is that CENTCOM, Central Command, is investigating several, what they believe to be credible allegations of possible civilian casualties. I don't know all the details of that. I would point you to Central Command. I know that they are actively investigating what they believe to be at least a few incidents of civilian causalities that they think, you know, warrant further investigation, that they have found credible to investigate. On their own, they've done this. But again, I'd point you to Central Command for more detail on that.


And if I could just editorialize a second, I mean, this is something we always take seriously. We are very mindful of trying to mitigate the risk to civilians every time we operate, everywhere we operate. And so when we do believe that we've had occasion to cause collateral damage or hurt, kill civilians, we take it seriously and we look into it. It matters to us.


Of the above remarks, AFP points out, "The comments marked the first time the US military has acknowledged that the air war may have exacted a toll on civilians."  Kate Brannen (Foreign Policy) offers:

Depending on whether any civilian casualties are confirmed -- and where they may have happened -- these new investigations could move the debate around whether U.S. troops need to be moved closer to the battlefield, said Paul Scharre, a former Army Ranger.  He worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2008 to 2013 on intellligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance policies, among other issues, before joining the Center for a New American Security.
Some critics of the Obama administration’s strategy against the Islamic State have called for more air power, describing the current airstrikes as “pinpricks.” But to unleash more bombs on Iraq or Syria without inadvertently killing civilians would most likely require U.S. troops to move closer to the fight.



And that's the thing about selling war -- those who do can always use anything to sell even more of it.  "You say we're killing civilians?  Well the answer is for us to up our involvement!  Ground troops will save civilians!"

Sadly, there are many who will go along with that claim -- despite the fact that the years 2003 through 2011 in Iraq, with massive numbers of US troops on the ground -- did not create a safety zone for civilians.


The point Kirby raised about civilian deaths kind of got smoothed over in press reports.

Probably because this press lives to protect itself.

The issue isn't just that there may have been civilian deaths.

There was another important comment -- one that reflects on the press so they prefer to bury it.

Kirby noted, "First of all, we don't have the ability to -- to count every nose that we shwack [sic]."

The US government -- with all its military might, its Special Ops and CIA in Iraq, et al -- can't "count every nose that we whack."

Yet, day after day, the claims by the US government and/or the Iraqi government as to how many 'militants,' 'Da'ash,' 'terrorists,' what have you are treated as fact and repeated as such.

Not only can they not "count every nose," they can't guarantee that the dead were who they claim they were.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"White House failing in Iraq again"
"Trevor Timm nails it"
"Marjorie Cohen steps up"
"Swank"
"revenge first thoughts"
"Covert Affairs gets the axe"
"What are the royals doing to young women"
"How does one become a princess these days?"
"If it's true, it's disgusting"
"Cosby"
"Grimm Fairy Tales"
"They spend pretty"
"THIS JUST IN! WASTING MONEY ON FOOD HE'S JUST GOING TO PUKE BACK UP!"