Can she be more haggard?

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

ONCE ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, EVEN YOUTHFUL ADULTS SOON LOOK HAGGERED.

THINK ABOUT IT.

CAN YOU REALLY TAKE A MORE HAGGARD LOOKING CRANKY CLINTON?



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



White House spokesperson Josh Earnest made a rather significant appearance on America's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum (Fox News) today.

Bill Hemmer: You said this week you're confident in the strategy and you just heard Senator McCain and other critics say you don't have a strategy.  In a sentence, what is it?


Josh Earnest:  Our strategy is to support the Iraqi security forces in doing what we will not do for them.  The United States is prepared to train them, to equip them and to back them on the battlefield with coalition military air power as they take the fight to ISIL in their own country.  The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq.  But we will stand with the Iraqi central government, the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi people as they do. We can also supplement that effort by trying to shut down every avenue of financing that ISIL has.  We can try to stem the flow of foreign fighters to that region of the world to try to shut down the pipeline of people who are traveling all across the world to take up arms alongside of ISIL.  We can work to try to counter the violent, [sic] inciteful  messaging that they're to incite people to carry out acts of violence -- we can try to counter that.  This is a comprehensive strategy and what we're going to see is we're going to see areas of progress -- areas like the success we had in driving ISIL out of Tikrit --

Bill Hemmer:  Okay, okay, okay --

Josh Earnest (Con't): -- we took an ISIL leader off the battle in Syria but there's no doubt that we've sustained some setbacks in Ramadi as well.



Those are stunning remarks on the part of the White House spokesperson when you grasp what happened Monday:  Joe Biden rushing to kneel before Haider al-Abadi and kiss the Iraqi prime minister's boo-boos and wounded pride over the remarks of US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter who,   on State of the Union (CNN) Sunday, spoke with Barbara Starr about the fall of Ramadi to the Islamic State.

Secretary Ash Carter:  What apparently happened was that the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. Uh, they were not outnumbered. In fact, they vastly outnumbered the opposing force. And yet they failed to fight they withdrew from the sight and uh that says to me and i think to most of us that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight ISIL and  defend themselves now we can give them training, we can give them equipment, we obviously can't give them the will to fight.

Instead of backing the Secretary of Defense, the White House chose to dispatch Joe Biden on a You've Got A Really Fine Penis, Sir, An Impressive One Even mission to reassure the pathetic Haider al-Abadi.

             

For Immediate Release

May 25, 2015

Readout of Vice President Biden's Call with Prime Minister Al-Abadi of Iraq

Vice President Biden spoke with Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi today to reaffirm U.S. support for the Iraqi government’s fight against ISIL. The Vice President recognized the enormous sacrifice and bravery of Iraqi forces over the past eighteen months in Ramadi and elsewhere. The Vice President welcomed the Council of Minister’s unanimous decision on May 19^th to mobilize additional troops, honor those who have fallen, and prepare for counter-attack operations. The Vice President pledged full U.S. support in these and other Iraqi efforts to liberate territory from ISIL, including the expedited provision of U.S. training and equipment to address the threat posed by ISIL’s use of truck bombs.


  

Josh Earnest remarks today sort of negate all the groveling and ass kissing Joe Biden did on Monday.

And  that could be a good thing -- provided this is the new road the White House is taking.  It could be a very bad thing if they intend to stab Earnest in the back a few days on down the line.

They need to be consistent -- one of the traits this administration has struggled to exhibit. 

If the remarks stand, you can be sure pouty Haider al-Abadi will be stomping his feet, his lower lip trembling and jutting out as he sobs and sobs.

He's been indulged more than enough as it is.  

Earnest's remarks are also of interest because they were made on Fox News.

The White House really needs to get over their petty grudges.

Fox News has a huge audience, Barack used to blather on about no red states, no blue states . . . and claim he could work with others.  He wants to be seen as mature then he and his administration needs to stop the attacks.  Fox News is a platform to reach millions of Americans and the White House is a fool to pass up the chance to utilize that platform.

The always ridiculous Nancy Pelosi (I can say it, she allegedly represent my Congressional district) was on Taking The Hill (MSNBC)  days ago speaking with host, Iraq War veteran and former US House Rep Patrick Murphy and insisting that the US was winning the propaganda war on social media and the Islamic State was losing.

There's something surreal about Nancy Pelosi going on MSNBC to insist that the propaganda war was being won -- then again, where else to make such a claim?

If they want to win the spin war, the White House is going to have to engage with the media and that does include Fox News.  

Bonus points to Earnest and the White House for selecting the frame and angle for the appearance (realizing that facing the sun -- outside -- would give Earnest a gravity that he sometimes lacks).  Yes, Josh has lovely eyes.  But forcing him to squint throughout the appearance gave his remarks an appearance of conviction that they might have otherwise struggled to convey visually.

In terms of getting a message out and how they presented the message, Josh Earnest and the White House were a success.

Most probably either nodded along or sighed and shook their head while Earnest spoke.  I doubt many picked up the problem -- the ongoing problem -- with his remarks. 

Let's review them one more time and see if you can figure out what's missing as he explains the White House's strategy or 'strategy' to combat the Islamic State.

Josh Earnest:  Our strategy is to support the Iraqi security forces in doing what we will not do for them.  The United States is prepared to train them, to equip them and to back them on the battlefield with coalition military air power as they take the fight to ISIL in their own country.  The United States is not going to be responsible for securing the security situation inside of Iraq.  But we will stand with the Iraqi central government, the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi people as they do. We can also supplement that effort by trying to shut down every avenue of financing that ISIL has.  We can try to stem the flow of foreign fighters to that region of the world to try to shut down the pipeline of people who are traveling all across the world to take up arms alongside of ISIL.  We can work to try to counter the violent, [sic] inciteful  messaging that they're to incite people to carry out acts of violence -- we can try to counter that.  This is a comprehensive strategy and what we're going to see is we're going to see areas of progress -- areas like the success we had in driving ISIL out of Tikrit --

Bill Hemmer:  Okay, okay, okay --

Josh Earnest (Con't): -- we took an ISIL leader off the battle in Syria but there's no doubt that we've sustained some setbacks in Ramadi as well.


Did you catch it?

No?

I think a number of people did catch it but we'll toss out a hint real quick: Next week, the month of June begins.

Did that help?

Josh Earnest is outlining what the White House will do and won't do in the fight against the Islamic State.  They will help Iraq as it attempts to stand up to the Islamic State, they will do that via war planes dropping bombs -- among other things.  They will also target financing of terrorism and the influx of foreign fighters into the region.


Okay.

But it was June of last year that US President Barack Obama told the American people that there was no military answer for Iraq's problems, that the only way forward for Iraq was a political solution.




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Stop military intervention in Iraq under any prete..."
"What difference does Haider al-Abadi make?"
"The Simpsons"
"Where You Lead?"
"The Flash"
"the cosby show"
"A Different World"
"Martin"
"Melrose Place"
"Thank you for being a friend"
"Designing Women"
"Roseanne"
"No hope"
"THIS JUST IN! THE DELUSION FADES!"

No hope

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

PROPAGANDA ARTIST SHEPARD FAIREY DID HIS PART AND THEN SOME TO GIFT BARRY O WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION IN 2008.

TODAY, HE LOOKS AT THE FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF AND FEELS THE HOPE IS GONE.

THE REALITY IS THAT THERE NEVER WAS ANY HOPE JUST DELUSION.

AND SICKNESS.

MAYBE SHEPARD CAN MAKE A PAINTING OF THAT?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


War Hawk Down!


He helped start an illegal war and he destroyed New Labour's reputation sending the party into a downward spiral in one election cycle after another including one just weeks ago.  But Tony Blair refused to read the writing on the wall until now.  AAP reports War Criminal Blair handed his letter of resignation over to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and he will no longer be the Middle East envoy for the Quartet group.  Lindsey German, with the UK's Stop The War Coalition, tells AAP, "Tony Blair's legacy remains: a devastated and war-torn Iraq, a Middle East in turmoil, and a much more dangerous world.  We will continue to campaign against the aggressive foreign policy he championed and for him to answer charges of war crimes."


Journalist Robert Fiske (Dawn) offers an analysis of Blair's failure in his post:

For Arabs – and for Britons who lost their loved ones in his shambolic war in Iraq – Blair’s appointment was an insult.
The man who never said he was sorry for his political disaster in Iraq simply turned up in Jerusalem four years later and, with a team which spent millions in accommodation and air fares, managed to accomplish absolutely nothing in the near-decade that followed.
Blair appeared indifferent to the massive suffering of the Palestinians – he was clearly impotent in preventing it – and spent much of his time away from the tragedy of the Middle East, advising the great and the good and a clutch of Muslim dictators, and telling the world – to Israel’s satisfaction – of the dangers represented by Iran

At today's US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Jeff Rathke attempted to spin Tony's failures by insisting that "we certainly value Tony Blair's contributions."  Pressed to cite contributions, even spin machine Rathke faltered.

QUESTION: So you assess his tenure over the past eight years as a successful tenure by the Quartet? Have the goals of the Quartet been achieved under the sort of the auspices of Envoy Blair?


MR RATHKE: Well, I think the Quartet’s goals haven’t been achieved, of course, because we’re working towards a two-state solution in which Israel lives side-by-side at peace with a Palestinian state. So until that’s achieved, I don’t think any of us can say that we’ve succeeded.

Last week, US President Barack Obama made a fool of himself publicly by attempting to minimize the fall of Ramadi to the Islamic State with Barack insisting this was not a loss.  In those footsteps follow Rathke who praises Blair's so-called "contributions" while being unable to cite any and insisting that the state of not succeeding is something other than "failure."

Jeff Rathke  also noted, "Secretary Kerry will then travel to Paris, France on June 2nd to lead the U.S. delegation to the Counter-ISIL Coalition Small-Group Ministerial. Coalition partners will review progress on the full range of our shared efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL, while affirming our support for Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi campaign against ISIL."

Oh, John's got strut around like he's Secretary of Defense again, is he?

John Kerry has done a pathetic job as Secretary of State.

Hillary was bad in every way except morale.  Bad for the department.  But she did use the post as non-stop self-advertising with photo-ops here and photo-ops there.   She never really accomplished anything in any of those non-stop, heavily covered global stops around the world but she certainly gave visuals that suggested she must be doing something.

John can't even promote himself.

As for the disaster that is Haider al-Abadi, France 24's Leela Jacinto observes:

When he replaced the disastrous Nuri al-Maliki as prime minister last year, Haider al-Abadi represented the hope that his predecessor’s sectarian way of doing business would end and that the new chief would be able to draw his disgruntled Sunni citizenry into the national fold.
But poor Abadi is looking more like the Viceroy of Baghdad than the prime minister of Iraq these days.  Of course he would have preferred to rely solely on the Iraqi security forces. But let’s not waste time on that so called, once-great Arab army. US Defense Secretary Ash Carter was dead right in his assessment of the Iraqi security forces showing no will to battle ISIS, White House damage control notwithstanding. I haven’t seen a great Arab army winning any wars in my lifetime. But I hear, from history books, that they once roamed this earth.
These days, we have great Arab militias, which become even more powerful and even more destabilizing with time and battlefield victories. 

And that, for Abadi -- a suave civilian politician raised in Baghdad’s affluent Karada district by his mother of Lebanese origin before moving to Britain to start an engineering business -- is a ticking bomb. The militias could present a threat to Abadi’s authority and if they do, all bets are off on how he will manage or weather that storm.  

 

Some elements of the current storm may be human-made.  This exchange took place during today's State Dept press briefing.




QUESTION: All right. I have two questions. One is about Ramadi. There are reports about Iraqi special forces retreating from the city because they received instructions from someone close to former Prime Minister Maliki or Maliki himself. Are you aware of those reports?



MR RATHKE: I’m not familiar with those reports. I don’t have any comment on that.


Nouri's long been said to be plotting -- and he always will until he's in his grave.  He wants to come back.  He has leaders loyal to him still in the ranks of the Iraqi military.  Is that why the militia is so much more effective than the Iraqi military?

It's a question worth pondering -- unless you're the US State Dept.


On the fall of Ramadi, Araw Damon and Hamdi Alkhshali (CNN -- link is text and video) offer an insider's account -- one Iraqi solider -- of what happened on the ground.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Detroit's Public Television Ch. 56 offers live cov..."
"Is Bosnia the end of the road for the UN?"
"Haider's spin versus reality"
"Elementary and CBS"
"Tatum's news"
"The Avengers"
"The Originals"
"The defeat of humanity?"
"Detroit"
"Not impressed by the renewal news"
"Coming Attractions"
"anthrax reduxe"
"That disgraceful Elijah Cummings"
"He loves an (ugly) celebrity"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O IS HAPPY TO POSE WITH THEM!" 

He loves an (ugly) celebrity

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

JUDD APTOWN AND THE WIFE HE PUTS IN MOVIES MET WITH FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

BARRY O SAID HE WAS THRILLED TO "ONCE AGAIN BE THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PERSON IN THE ROOM!  I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW GREAT IT WAS TO STAND NEXT TO THAT FAT PUTZ AND HIS HAGGED OUT WIFE.  IT MAKES ME WANT TO JUST INVITE UGLY PEOPLE TO THE WHITE HOUSE FROM NOW ON.  OR AT LEAST STAND NEXT TO JOE BIDEN FOR EVERY PHOTO."

AND SOME PEOPLE SAY BARRY O CAN'T STRATEGIZE!



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Mark your calendars, Ammar Al Shamary (USA Today) reports, "Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Tuesday that 'the liberation of Anbar is so close'. "



So close -- closer and closer
Feel your body next to mine
So close -- closer and closer
closer and closer and closer
I lose all sense of time 
I want to stay here for the rest of my life
I want to stay here for the rest of my life
-- "So Close," written by Bill Wray, Rob Mounsey and Diana Ross, first appears on Diana's Silk Electric album.



And it may take the rest of our lives.

It certainly won't be "so close."

Anbar isn't a city, it's a province.  And while Ramadi feel to the Islamic State this month, the province itself has been under IS de facto control since spring of 2014.  The 'success' of Tikrit this spring was no 'success' at all.

The mission to retake the city from the Islamic State was supposed to be quick and last less than a week.  It took them weeks just to get into the city itself.  And today?

Tikrit is empty.

Not thriving.

Refugees who fled the violence of the Islamic State refuse to return for the same reason that others fled the 'liberation' -- the Shi'ite militias (thugs) were looting and terrorizing.

And Iraq's prime minister responded how?

After denying the War Crimes were taking place, after photos surfaced proving that they were, Haider announced that from this moment forward those breaking the law better stop.  Starting now.  He's not kidding, mister.  Right now.

No one was ever punished for anything despite the fact that the thugs were quite happy during their crime spree -- as demonstrated by their broad smiles in one photograph after another.

Yeah, photographs.

Plural.

And yet no one was punished.

Even with photographs of the guilty, Haider and his forces were unable to figure out what the criminals looked like.

Tikrit was a failure in every way.

It revealed that the Iraqi forces were not ready for combat.

It also revealed that the Iranian help was no real help at all.

Despite -- or maybe because -- Iranian Quds Force ommander Qasem Solemani calling the shots, the mission faltered week after week and the Iraqi forces were only able to move forward (and into Tikrit) as a result of Solemani leaving and the US military dropping bombs from war planes.


So claims by Haider al-Abadi that liberation of Anbar Province -- the entire province -- are "close" are probably as dubious as every other claim the fool has made.

That includes, but is not limited to, when he tried to big boy on the international stage last fall by announcing that he had 'intelligence' on terrorist attacks on NYC's subways.  Though the White House was indulgent, as always, on their child-like idiot, others -- especially NYC officials -- felt no obligation to treat crazy Haider with kid gloves and he returned to Iraq with the howls of laughter still echoing in his ears.


With that record dogging him, Haider wants to announce that not only is he initiating a mission to 'liberate' Anbar Province but that liberation is very close.


Hamdi Alkhshali, Nick Paton Walsh and Laura Smith-Spark (CNN) report, "Iraq forces have launched a major military operation to liberate Iraq's Anbar and Salaheddin provinces from ISIS, Iraqi state media and a key Shia militia group said Tuesday, a little more than a week after the militant group overran Anbar's provincial capital, Ramadi."

So the Iraqi forces are launching an operation --

Well, Iraq military adjacent at any rate.  Ben Kamisar (The Hill) words it this way, "Iraqi-allied forces have launched a new offensive to retake two major provinces from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), according to local media reports."  Simon Tomlinson (Telegraph of London) notes, "A spokesman for Iraq's Shi'ite militias boasted that the operation launched to retake the province from the Islamic State will 'not last for a long time' and that Iraqi forces have surrounded the provincial capital from three sides."

The Shi'ite militias -- noted for their abuses and their criminal actions -- are taking part in the action in Sunni Anbar?

No, they're leading it -- or saying that they are.  Reuters reports, "Iraq's Shi'ite militia announced on Tuesday they had taken charge of the campaign to drive Islamic State from the western province of Anbar, giving the operation an openly sectarian codename that could infuriate its Sunni population." And the codename is Labaik ya Hussein to ensure that sectarian tensions rise even further.  AP explains that the phrase "refers to a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and one of the most revered figures of Shiite Islam."  Joshua Keating (Slate) elaborates further:

The Shiite militias have named the Anbar campaign “Labaik ya Hussein”—a slogan honoring the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad whose defeat and beheading in 680 A.D. is one of the defining moments in the history of Shia Islam and the schism between the Shiites and Sunnis. The name is not exactly designed to assuage the fears of Sunni locals who see the campaign as an Iranian-backed Shiite takeover. It also plays into the hands of ISIS, which portrays itself as fighting on behalf of Iraq’s beleaguered Sunni population. 


Zee News words it this way, "Iraq`s Shi`ite paramilitaries announced on Tuesday they had taken charge of the campaign to drive Islamic State from the western province of Anbar, giving the operation an openly sectarian codename that could infuriate its Sunni population."

AFP reports, "The Pentagon has expressed disappointment over a decision by Iraqi militias to impose an explicitly Shia name for a military operation in Iraq’s Sunni heartland, saying it could aggravate sectarian tensions."  Zee News words it this way, "Washington: The Pentagon on Tuesday said it was "unhelpful" for Iraq`s Shi`ite militia to have announced an openly sectarian code name for the operation to retake the Sunni city of Ramadi and added that, in the US view, the full-on offensive had yet to begin."


And these steps make the news at the same time that Iraqi Spring MC notes that  southeast of Baquba, Shi'ite militias have burned ten houses and are telling people they must leave their village.  The same outlets rushing to repeat the Baghdad propaganda shy from reporting those actions.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Haider unleashes Shi'ite militias on Anbar, War Cr..."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Winning""
"I Hate The War"
"Kat's Korner: Buffy Sainte-Marie's unwelcome retur..."
"Hejira"
"Iraq, Isaiah and Third"
"The shrug"
"let's hear it for angela merkel!"
"de Blasio attacks public libraries"
"It smells like corruption"
"War Hawk Hillary Is Also A Gun Runner"
"Gary Younge, shut up"
"My weak ass party"
"Tacky"
"He's never had plastic surgery?"

• Truest statement of the week
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: One person doesn't need to be asked wha...
• TV: Zooming in on actresses of color
• Ezzie Klein, still wrong after all these years
• TV: Oh, no, they didn't
• This edition's playlist
• TRILLIONS STOLEN! Get it back! (David DeGraw)
• Why do unions still follow Labour? (Dave Sewell)
• Isakson Commemorates Memorial Day on Senate Floor
• IAVA Calls on Congress to Fulfill Promises to Vete...
• Michigan Greens Support New Fracking-Ban Petition ...
• State Dept special briefing on Iraq
• Highlights

"Another day, another White House tantrum"
"THIS JUST IN! TEMPERS FLARE!"










"

Another day, another White House tantrum

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

IT WAS A GOOD DAY FOR FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

THERE WAS A VERY PUBLIC TEMPER TANTRUM THROWN IN THE OVAL OFFICE BUT, FOR A NICE CHANGE, BARRY O WASN'T THE ONE STOMPING HIS TINY FEET.


REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "WAH! WAH! IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE MY MOMENT!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The lies about Iraq never end.  USA Today's dim-witted editorial board fashioned a series of hogwash statements that they hope idiots will applaud -- idiots on my side (the left) because it's little more than self-stroking.  And that the editorial board of any supposed objective paper thinks they can get away with lying demonstrates that the crisis in journalism which helped sell the Iraq War continues to this day.  Case in point:


Obama's policies have indeed made things worse. But in arguing that he should have kept troops in Iraq longer, his critics skip over the inconvenient fact that he pulled out on a schedule negotiated by Bush.


No, that's not a fact.

Here's a fact for the lying whores of USA Today's editorial board: The SOFA was a three year contract.  That's all it was.  It was not the end of the US occupation of Iraq.

I'm sorry that you're too damn stupid or too dishonest to tell that truth.

However, we told it in real time the day the White House released the SOFA -- Thanksgiving Day, 2008 -- look it up in the archives -- we published the SOFA in full and I wasted my Thanksgiving night reading and analyzing it.


I went on to repeatedly explain that this was the replacement for the yearly United Nations mandate.  That wasn't a controversial call and it had been made in the April 10, 2008 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing by then-Chair Joe Biden and by then-US Senator Russ Feingold among others.


It did not mean that the US left at the end of 2011.  It only gave coverage for 2009, 2010 and 2011.  A new contract could replace it.

For noting that reality, I endured three years of e-mails telling me I was wrong, I didn't know what I was talking about, the SOFA meant it was the end, blah blah blah.

At one point, I got very irritated and pointed out here that everyone who's broken a contract with a multi-national but managed to keep the seven-figure salary, keep standing.  Oh, what, only me?

Yeah, so just stop talking, stop pretending you know a thing about contract law unless, like me, you've walked out on a contract and did so with no legal consequences because you were smart enough to read and comprehend the contract and see where the wiggle room was.

Who was right?  The thousands e-mailing with their 'expertise' or me?

In 2011, Barack Obama began serious discussions about a new SOFA with the Iraqi government.  In 2010, he backed Nouri al-Maliki -- who had lost the 2010 elections -- because Nouri had promised he would allow US troops to stay on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011.  Vice President Joe Biden declared it was a "sure thing" with Nouri as prime minister.

And it could have been. But Barack wanted a smaller number than Nouri did.

Nouri feared a military coup.

Only a military coup.

He terrorized the Iraqi people -- with the Iraqi military and other forces -- and didn't fear them.

The politicians?

The US government had a way of keeping them in line -- a method former Iraq Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi described to Iran's Press TV in 2008 "as a matter of blackmailing" and "political blackmail."

That just left the Iraqi military whom Nouri encouraged to break the laws and disobey the Constitution.  And if they'd so quickly do that, why wouldn't they also launch a coup against him?

Nouri wanted thousands of US troops to protect him from a coup.

US Senator John McCain has repeatedly accused Barack of tanking the SOFA talks.  The reason he makes that charge is because McCain was repeatedly in Iraq including in 2011 when he spoke to various leaders about what was needed to get a new SOFA through Parliament?

Like Nouri, they wanted more US troops.  (Nouri also conveyed that to McCain but McCain was not relying solely on Nouri's stated needs.)

To put this before the Parliament (the 2008 one went before the Parliament and 'passed' -- it didn't pass, there weren't enough votes for it or members present), they needed to have a sizable force or it just wasn't worth the political risk they'd be taking (the risk being the backlash from the people as well as from Moqtada al-Sadr and his movement which represented the largest and most sustained element in Iraq calling for all US troops and officials to leave the country).

Barack wouldn't budge on the number and it wasn't worth it politically to Nouri who was also getting promises from Tehran that if he didn't extend the US occupation of Iraq, he could count on Iranian forces to suppress any attempted coup which might take place.


USA Today insists, "But in arguing that he should have kept troops in Iraq longer, his critics skip over the inconvenient fact that he pulled out on a schedule negotiated by Bush."

USA Today is the one skipping over inconvenient facts such as the one where Barack Obama attempted to get a new SOFA.  Here's Tim Arango and Michael S. Schmidt (New York Times) reporting in October of 2011:

President Obama’s announcement on Friday that all American troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year was an occasion for celebration for many, but some top American military officials were dismayed by the announcement, seeing it as the president’s putting the best face on a breakdown in tortured negotiations with the Iraqis.

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. But officials also held out hope that after the withdrawal, the two countries could restart negotiations more productively, as two sovereign nations.

This year, American military officials had said they wanted a “residual” force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence. Those numbers were scaled back, but the expectation was that at least about 3,000 to 5,000 American troops would remain.

The tens of thousands is what Nouri stated he would back.  When McCain accuses Barack of tanking the talks, he's making that accusation based on the fact that it was known 5,000 was unacceptable to Nouri.

That doesn't make McCain's accusation true but that's the basis for his charge.


That's too confusing for the editorial board of USA Today.


So let's really underscore that Barack Obama sought to extend the SOFA.  This is from one of Barack's rare press briefings (this one is June 19, 2014) and he's speaking with CNN's Acosta.

Q    Just very quickly, do you wish you had left a residual force in Iraq?  Any regrets about that decision in 2011?


THE PRESIDENT:  Well, keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me; that was a decision made by the Iraqi government.  We offered a modest residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces.  We had a core requirement which we require in any situation where we have U.S. troops overseas, and that is, is that they're provided immunity since they're being invited by the sovereign government there, so that if, for example, they end up acting in self-defense if they are attacked and find themselves in a tough situation, that they're not somehow hauled before a foreign court.  That's a core requirement that we have for U.S. troop presence anywhere. 

The Iraqi government and Prime Minister Maliki declined to provide us that immunity.  And so I think it is important though to recognize that, despite that decision, that we have continued to provide them with very intensive advice and support and have continued throughout this process over the last five years to not only offer them our assistance militarily, but we’ve also continued to urge the kinds of political compromises that we think are ultimately necessary in order for them to have a functioning, multi-sectarian democracy inside the country.


Samantha Power has stated to various friends that Nouri was willing to give on immunity if Barack would increase the number of US troops and, when he wouldn't budge, Nouri wouldn't either.



But right there, Barack saying he was trying to get an agreement.


So USA Today needs to learn how to be factual and how to tell the truth.

The problem the press has is that they suck up to whomever is in office.

They're little whores to the powerful.


FAIR used to make that point but fell silent when Barack took the White House.

It's why they're useless and why everyone can laugh when a Republican is in the White House again and suddenly FAIR is aghast over the press worship and over the amount of money spent on inaugural balls -- when it was Bully Boy Bush occupying the Oval Office, FAIR thought it unseemly -- at a time of war -- to be holding these lavish balls.



I've been talking to several friends -- high up in the Democratic Party -- about the sudden interest in WMD.

It's been explained that this is how Hillary wins.

If the entire Iraq War is about WMD then Hillary can play the "I'm just a little girl who misunderstood intelligence.  I'm only a little girl."

So that's why we've suffered through this talking point for nearly two weeks.

Let's be really clear on something here, if Iraq had WMD, if nuclear weapons had been discovered in Iraq in April of 2003, it wouldn't have made the Iraq War "right," "legal" or "ethical."

WMD is a distraction.

That's all it was in real time.

It was a fear based talking point meant to silence debate and discussion and distract from the illegal nature of attacking a country that has not attacked you.

Hillary's not a little girl.

She's rather heavy and dumpy -- even for her age.  And she's a woman, not a girl.

Most of all she was an attorney.

She has a functioning knowledge of the law -- it's how she so often skirts it successfully and semi-successfully.

Even if the delicate flower was misled by intelligence -- she wasn't -- she still knew Just War theory -- it was very big when she was in college due to what was taking place in Vietnam.  So she needs to be asked about the Iraq War.  Not about the distraction of WMD, but about how someone who knows the law could support illegal actions, a war of aggression.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Isakson Commemorates Memorial Day on Senate Floor"
"Understanding, Appreciating and Saluting Our Soldi..."
"Paralyzed Veterans of America Presents Legislative..."
"Isakson Talks Veterans' Issues on C-SPAN Newsmaker..."
"Michigan Greens Support New Fracking-Ban Petition ..."
"TRILLIONS STOLEN! Get it back! (David DeGraw)"
"IAVA Calls on Congress to Fulfill Promises to Vete..."
"Haider al-Abadi returns to Iraq as the Islamic Sta..."
"The Following"
"community (paint ball)"
"Sunset Jackson"
"Hillary"
"Hersh"
"Ishmael Reed calls out hairy back Dave Zirin and Melissa Harris Lacewell Parry"
"The Flash (the black hole)"
"The news you should not miss"
"Pitch Perfect 2"
"DC Blogger is one sick and twisted individual"
"Anger in the Kitchen"
"Cranky has an explanation"
"THIS JUST IN! SHE ALSO SENT PHOTOS!"

Cranky has an explanation

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

REVELATIONS HAVE EMERGED THAT CRANKY CLINTON USED HER PRIVATE E-MAIL AND SERVER TO SEND SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET AHEAD OF THE SPIN, CRANKY IS INSISTING IT WASN'T JUST SENSITIVE INFORMATION, "I ALSO SENT FAKE NUDE PHOTOS OF NATE BERKUS, FAKE NUDE PHOTOS OF MARTIN LAWRENCE AND FAKE NUDE PHOTOS OF DICK CHENEY.  PLUS SOME REAL NUDE PHOTOS OF TIPPER GORE!  THAT LAST SET WAS A GOOF, YOU KNOW, FOR LAUGHS!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Throughout this week, I've repeatedly stressed that the only politician with a national profile who can tell the truth on Iraq is former Senator Mike Gravel.  No one else can.

Today, Fritz comes along to prove me . . . right.

Former Senator Ernest F. Hollings comes along to prove that, while a train can whistle, a politician can only lie.

"Why America invaded -- and failed in -- Iraq," finds Fritz name dropping ("my old desk partner, Joe Biden"), envious of other countries ("What does Mossad say about Iraq?") but mainly just lying.  Lying to himself and others.

Fritz insists he was against the Iraq War . . . before he was for it.  See speaking to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, sharp as a tack Fritz noticed Rumsfeld didn't answer him when he asked Donald, "What does Mossad say about Iraq?"  So Fritz knew he had to vote against the 2002 war on Iraq resolution.  Bully Boy Bush goes on TV making the case for starting war without provocation by declaring, "We cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud."  Then Fritz "knew" (his term) that the CIA told Bully Boy Bush that Iraq had WMD.

How did he know it?

I think he spread his legs while Peatsy Hollings, noted music hater, whispered in the vicinity of his anus, "Real men start illegal wars."

That makes about as much since as anything else in his long lie of a column.

Personal favorite?

This passage:

I remember debating a PNAC Resolution on Iraq in 1998. We finally agreed under Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader, to a resolution on Iraq by a voice vote so long as the last paragraph was worded: “Under no circumstance does this permit military action against Iraq.” At that time, we wanted to stir dissent and have Iraq headed for a democracy but under no circumstance invade.  

Yes, in the world of civil disobedience, no one has done more than the US Congress.  He wanted "to stir dissent"?

Again, politicians lie.

And then they lie again.

Fritz isn't just lying, he's also stupid.

It's a generational stupid on his part.

Fritz spends his retirement writing these columns and gets all excited when they're printed.  Not since Peatsy railed against the Prince-written Sheena Easton hit "Sugar Walls" has either spouse had an encounter with the modern world so many of us live in today.

Meaning?

Only an old fool who didn't grasp the internet would type that he voted for the resolution only after its last paragraph included "Under no circumstance does this permit military action against Iraq."

Only an old fool who didn't grasp the internet would type that claim.

Click here.

It's the resolution that passed the Senate (identical to what passed the House, by the way).

Where's the statement, Fritz?

It's not in the bill.

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2525

  To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 1998

   Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
Helms, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
  To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Iraq Liberation Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 
        eight year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against 
        Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.
            (2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish 
        civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, 
        killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.
            (3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against 
        Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, 
        killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth 
        defects that affect the town today.
            (4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a seven month 
        occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses 
        against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells 
        ablaze upon retreat.
            (5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 
        28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire 
        conditions specified in United Nations Security Council 
        Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other 
        things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its 
        weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term 
        monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.
            (6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to 
        assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-
        16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.
            (7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near 
        the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed 
        invasion of or attack against Kuwait.
            (8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its 
        opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the 
        seat of the Kurdish regional government.
            (9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to 
        deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special 
        Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and 
        documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe 
        operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel 
        in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and 
        concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass 
        destruction programs.
            (10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with 
        UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring 
        activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and 
        UNSCOM.
            (11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public 
        Law 105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in 
        material and unacceptable breach of its international 
        obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate 
        action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws 
        of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its 
        international obligations.''.

SEC. 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

    It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the 
regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the 
emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

    (a) Authority To Provide Assistance.--The President may provide to 
the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance 
with section 5 the following assistance:
            (1) Broadcasting.--(A) Grant assistance to such 
        organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such 
        organizations to Iraq.
            (B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United 
        States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to 
        carry out this paragraph.
            (2) Military assistance.--(A) The President is authorized 
        to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of 
        the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department 
        of Defense, and military education and training for such 
        organizations.
            (B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of 
        the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided 
        under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
    (b) Humanitarian Assistance.--The Congress urges the President to 
use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to 
provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq 
controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, 
with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to 
such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.
    (c) Restriction on Assistance.--No assistance under this section 
shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in 
accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is 
to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein 
regime.
    (d) Notification Requirement.--The President shall notify the 
congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation 
of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures 
applicable to reprogramming notifications under such section 634A.
    (e) Reimbursement Relating to Military Assistance.--
            (1) In general.--Defense articles, defense services, and 
        military education and training provided under subsection 
        (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the 
        Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are 
        appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).
            (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
        to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal 
        years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse 
        the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value 
        (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act if 
        1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military 
        education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).
    (f) Availability of Funds.--(1) Amounts authorized to be 
appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available 
until expended.
    (2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in 
addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in 
this section.

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

    (a) Initial Designation.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi 
democratic opposition organizations that satisfy the criteria set forth 
in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
    (b) Designation of Additional Groups.--At any time subsequent to 
the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may 
designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition 
organizations that satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as 
eligible to receive assistance under section 4.
    (c) Criteria for Designation.--In designating an organization 
pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only 
organizations that--
            (1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals and 
        groups opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and
            (2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for 
        human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to 
        maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering 
        cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein 
        regime.
    (d) Notification Requirement.--At least 15 days in advance of 
designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to 
this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees 
specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his 
proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to 
reprogramming notifications under such section 634A.

SEC. 6. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR IRAQ.

    Consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization 
Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent 
Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of 
Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 
78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the 
Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to 
establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of 
indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi 
officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, 
and other criminal violations of international law.

SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

    It is the sense of Congress that, once Saddam Hussein is removed 
from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition 
to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian 
assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition 
assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by 
convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response 
to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.
                                 

"Under no circumstance does this permit military action against Iraq"?

No, it's not in the resolution.

Well there was other action in the Senate, on Iraq, in 1998.

Maybe it was in another Iraq resolution?

It wasn't in this one.  Or this one.  Or this one. Or this one.


Now maybe Fritz isn't lying.

Maybe his mind is gone?

Or maybe in real time Trent Lott put one over on him and tricked him into believing the phrase was in a bill on Iraq in 1998 when it wasn't?


Again, find me a politician with a national profile who's not lying about Iraq.  Other than Mike Gravel, you really can't.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"ACLU Lawsuit: Michigan ID Policy Exposes Transgend..."
"Ramadi has fallen so Haider goes to Russia"
"Truest tweet of the week"
"The decline of Modern Family"
"Required reading"
"Cass Elliott"
"Tuesday"
"stanwyck"
"About those bankers and their slap on the wrist"
"Favorite movies"
"Tweet to read"
"Celebrities on TV"
"Cranky's still got e-mails"
"THIS JUST IN! THE SURVIVING E-MAILS!"

Cranky's still got e-mails

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

LIKE JOAN CRAWFORD IN A ROSE GARDEN, CRANKY CLINTON TOOK AN AXE TO HER E-MAILS.

BUT A FEW SURVIVED.

INCLUDING WHERE SHE'S DISCUSSING BENGHAZI WITH SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL.

CRANKY'S UNNATURAL ATTRACTION TO BLUMENTHAL MAY BURY HER YET.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED, "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT MAN.  MAINLY BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:





In yesterday's snapshot, we noted how, excepting former US Senator Mike Gravel, no US politician with a national presence tells the truth about Iraq.

They all tend to repeat the comforting lies about how the US 'helped' Iraq and how a 'gift' was given (at gun point) and it's always noble and wonderful -- on the side of the 'giver.'  Very little attention is ever given to those that the 'gift' was imposed upon.

Damon Linker, non-politician, attempts to grapple, all these years later, with whether or not Bully Boy Bush and others lied about believing former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was sitting on Weapons of Mass Destruction.  At The Week, Linker notes this belief (or stated 'belief') was held by many Democrats in the five or so years leading up to the Iraq War:

I read or listened in real time to most of the statements quoted in this useful Larry Elder column from 2006. Bill Clinton in 1998 and 2003; Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in February 1998; Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger in 1998; Rep. Nancy Pelosi in 1998; General Wesley Clark in 2002; Sen. John Rockefeller in 2002; French President Jacques Chirac in 2003 — all of them, and many more, expressed the overwhelming consensus of the Washington elite of both parties that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD and that this made him a serious threat both to our allies in the region and the United States itself.



And Linker concludes:


Twelve years later, rather than doing the hard work of figuring out why so many Democrats (including the party's presumptive presidential nominee in 2016) made the unwise decision to support the invasion, liberals have decided to go easy on themselves by treating the Bush administration not as foolish but as sinister, conniving, evil. What a relief it must be to exonerate oneself from complicity in a catastrophic mistake by portraying oneself as an innocent victim of a diabolical plot.


It's an interesting column, one worth reading and I applaud the effort.

I started speaking out against the Iraq War publicly in February 2003 (one month before the war started).

To me, today's discussion is b.s.

Whether it's a little government monkey like Mike Morrell making statements that no one should believe or the continued other nonsense, it doesn't really matter.

I didn't base my objection on WMD being present or not being present.

Apparently, there are a lot of idiots or, in fairness, a lot of people who were silent when it mattered that now want to pretend they were brave.

Brave would never having been declaring that the Iraq War had to be fought or not fought based on WMDs.

WMDs couldn't be proven or disproven short of the United Nations weapons inspectors being allowed to do their job.  (Bully Boy Bush did not allow them to do their job.)

I am never gong to build an argument around something I can't prove or disprove.

I don't know anyone in the early days against the war who was going around saying, "Saddam doesn't have WMDs!"  I'm sure some people some where did that.  But those of us that were speaking out -- especially on the college lecture circuit -- were not making that claim.

And I really find it dishonest that these Democratic partsians are today trying to pretend that WMD was the issue.

WMD was the side show.

I spoke out against the illegal war because it was illegal.

Just War theory didn't spring up in the last five days of 2002.

Its roots go back to Saint Augustine and Thomas of Aquin -- and even pre-date that if you pull in The Mahabharata.  Centuries of legal theory, centuries of ethical exploration resulted in the Just War theory.

Bully Boy Bush was trashing that.

There is no go-it-alone justification unless you are attacked.

The US was not attacked by Iraq.


There was no legal justification to go to war with Iraq.  There was no ethical justification.

What Bully Boy Bush did was upend the law, upend tradition and insist that there was a new justification for war:  You could now legally go to war with a country because you suspected that at some point in the near or distant future they might decide to attack you.

There was no imminent threat nor was the US responding to an attack that had taken place.

The Iraq War was a war of choice.

The choice being made -- not by the people of America, not by the people of Iraq -- was going to have long lasting implications.  For Iraq, the most immediate implication would be the tragedy of lives lost both during combat and in the immediate years following.  For the US, it would mean our government was not just embracing its inner thug, it was now fondling its inner thug in public.

There would be no more efforts to pretend -- and there haven't been.

Libya?

We bombed it.

I beliee Hillary Clinton's argument is: We did it because we could.

There is no more pretense that the US government follows the law.

It just acts as a big bully doing whatever it wants.

Now the uni-polar system doesn't last for long.

In part, that's due to the fact that bullies breed hostility.

Whether a multi-polar system will come into being or a bi-polar system will return (Russia versus the US again?), something will take its place.

But WMD is nonsense and b.s.

And not noting how certain Republicans and Democrats felt that the uni-polar system meant the US could (and should) do whatever it wants?

I'm really not into stupidity.

I feel like I'm watching five-year-olds trying to explain rain.

Only with five-year-olds, they're cute.

There's nothing cute about adults basing arguments 12 years after the start of the Iraq War on whether or not it was known that Iraq had WMD before the Iraq War started.

When the US government was moving towards going to war on Iraq and doing so without even the cover of a United Nations authorization, when they were doing it with no attack from Iraq and no imminent attack, they were upending the rules of engagement and destroying the traditions that engagement were based upon.

Generally, when rulers act as the US government did in 2003, they're not seen well in history.  Nazi Germany didn't feel the need to follow international law, didn't feel the need to embrace Just War theory.

The actions were criminal.






RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"State Dept special briefing on Iraq"
"Michigan Greens Oppose HB 4540's New FOIA Loophole..."
"You Are The One! (David DeGraw)"
"Totally expected -- Ramadi refugees and Hillary de..."
"The administration's lies never end"
"Stating the obvious"
"Didn't know Stephanopoulus was Greek for Brian Williams"
"The grown up in the room"
"Bernie is a fake ass"
"The spoiler?"
"Oh, Toni"
"Oh, Hildabeast, really?"
"pig hillary"
"Covers"
"She accomplished something, right?"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY LEAVES THEM STUMPED!"

She accomplished something, right?

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

IN IOWA, A FOCUS GROUP HAS BECOME THE FIRST TEST CASE -- ASKED TO NAME A SUCCESS FOR CRANKY CLINTON DURING HER LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPT, THEY COULD THINK OF NOTHING.


NOT ONE THING.


ON THE PLUS FOR CRANKY, NO ONE SAID ANYTHING LIKE, "SHE FARTED CONSTANTLY THROUGH ONE PRESENTATION AFTER ANOTHER."

BUT EVEN SO, YOU'D THINK FOUR YEARS WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE ACCOMPLISHMENT.

YOU'D THINK.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



We're going to start with a  quick round of Name That Republican! 


December 1, 2009, US President Barack Obama declared "we are bringing the Iraq War to a responsible end."

Name the Republican, desperate for glory, who quickly added:

That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 


The US gave Iraq something, did they?

Those damn Republicans always so full of themselves, seeing tragedy and crimes as a gift.  Shame on them, may they rot in --

Huh?

Oh, that was Barack.


Yeah, Barack's repeatedly lied about the Iraq War.


Most infamously he lied in his March 26, 2014 speech -- so much lying we needed the March 26, 2014 snapshot and the March 27, 2014 snapshot to cover it.


You can use those links for our comments but let's note reaction from others to that hideous speech.



William Rivers Pitt (Truthout) declared:

Truthout does not forget. We were at the forefront of the struggle against that disastrous war, and we will not stand idly by as an alleged "good guy" slaps a coat of paint over it to cover up the blood on the walls. President Obama sounds for all the world like a used car salesman trying to peddle a lemon, and that will not happen on our watch. 




DS Wright (Firedoglake) noted:

Yesterday President Barack Obama tried to claim that the United States government’s actions in the 2003 Iraq War were legal and different than Russia’s actions in Crimea because the US had “sought to work within the international system.” Apparently merely seeking to work within the international system is some kind of get out of jail free card. If one follows Obama’s logic then Russia need only to have “sought” a doomed UN resolution justifying the annexation of Crimea before doing so, this would have made their actions legitimate under Obama’s standard.



 The Voice of Russia offered:

Matt Howard and Ross Caputi, members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, spoke with Common Dreams by phone and said that the president's narrative on the events that led up to the Iraq invasion, inside or outside the context of Ukraine, was simply "not grounded in reality." "We went from one lie, which was weapons of mass destruction, to another lie which was liberation and freedom," said Howard. "This idea that Iraq is somehow better off or that the US waged a so-called 'Good War' is ridiculous."



Grasp the above.  And there are two points here.

The first, a lot of people -- usually stupid people -- but some are also whores -- are glomming onto remarks by candidates for the GOP's presidential nomination to insist that this person or that person isn't fit to serve.

Now Jeb Bush brings his own problems on himself.

No one forced him to pick one position and then, after the press kicks him around the room for a day or two, rush to pick another position.

That's something worthy of comment -- it's probably killed his career, in fact.

But this nonsense of jumping on remarks?

Okay, let's do that.

But let's do that honestly.

In which case, there's Mike Gravel and who else?

Who besides former US Senator Mike Gravel has told the truth about Iraq?  The whole truth, not the half truth?  What politician?

Not Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader's made himself useless and needs to find a rocking chair in an old folk's home.  Bernie Sanders?  Bernie's lied for years.  Yes, he voted against the war in 2002 but he never did join the Out of Iraq Caucus while he as in the House and he never really did anything to stop the illegal war after it started.

US House Rep John Conyers had no power and had to hold hearings in a basement room -- but he held hearings there.  What did Bernie Sanders ever do?

The same media that's all over this GOP politician or that?

They mocked John Conyers for holding hearings.  They mocked him, they laughed at him, they ridiculed him.

So I'm not really in the mood to get behind them today even though I don't particularly care for the people they're targeting.

I do care about fairness.

Barack's remarks have been dishonest and disgusting.

Pretty much every national politician -- of both parties and of Bernie's laughable Democratic Socialist party -- has lied about Iraq.

Which brings us to part two of this.

Elderly poindexter Paul Krugman got praised this week when he shouldn't have been.

In 2008, Paul was for Hillary and against Barack and, back then, he could be honest about Barack.  But we all saw how quickly Paul could whore.  No one whores like an elderly whore locked away in academia.

In his ridiculous column, Paul declared:

1) the Iraq War "was worse than a mistake, it was a crime."

2) the lies were "actually obvious even at the time"


And I can agree with that.

I can even agree that there was a campaign of "insinuation" where charges were stated or inferred but there was never any proof provided.

Insinuation is also my biggest problem with the column.

Paul claims he stands for truth -- no whore stands except maybe on their head and that's only if the john paying for it is into that.

But he tells you about Bully Boy Bush and the White House and blah blah blah.

But that's not the truth, not the full truth.

It is the "fool truth" and many fools rush to embrace it and amplify it.

Paul's insinuations all go to the Republicans.

"Democrat" never pops up nor do any of the Democrats who supported the war -- not the ones who did so with the 2002 vote nor the many votes which followed after.

Paul's not providing the full truth.

Frances A. Boyle's not a politician.  Maybe that's why he can provide the full truth?



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Media Advisory: America's Newest Generation of Vet..."
"Ramadi and spin"
"The No S**t Tweet of the Week"
"Woody Allen"
"Hillary of the 1%"
""Rhiannon""
"scandal's low rated finale"
"Stevie Nicks' "Beautiful Child""
"Silver Springs"
""Welcome to the room Sara""
"Honey Hi"
"Iraq"
"Cranky worked hard culling those e-mails!"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY SPEAKS!"