Thursday, December 04, 2008

Patrick Buchanan's envy problems

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
 
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN, PROFESSIONAL CRANK, ISSUED MORE HUMAN WASTE FROM THE CESSPOOL HE CALLS A MIND TODAY.
 
AT ANTI-WAR (A SEXIST SITE THAT ACTUALLY INCREASES THE WAR MIND-SET), PATTY DECIDED THAT HE'D WRITE ABOUT BARACK AND HILLARY.  HE'S WRITTEN ABOUT BARACK A GREAT LATELY AND NOTED THE VARIOUS MEN BARACK IS SURROUNDING HIMSELF WITH.  STRANGELY, HE DID NOT DO A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ANGLE BUT WHEN WRITING OF HILLARY BEING ANNOUNCED AS PART OF THE CABINET, HE CAN ONLY SEE IT IN TERMS OF A MARRIAGE.
 
WE ASKED PATTY BUCKY IF HE WAS JUST RE-OOZING HIS OLD 90S GARBAGE AND SUBSTITUTING "BARACK" FOR "BILL"? 
 
"I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!" YELLED PAT BUCHANAN.  "BUT THEN I NEVER THINK!"
 
VEINS WERE STANDING OUT ON HIS FOREHEAD AND WE ASKED IF HE NEEDED A BREAK.  HE YELLED THAT THIS WAS HIS "TYPICAL CONVERSATIONAL STYLE! NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!  LET'S GO!"
 
ASKED WHY HE WAS SO OBSESSED WITH HILLARY CLINTON, PAT WHISPERED A RESPONSE.
 
WE ASKED HIM TO REPEAT IT WHICH HE DID; HOWEVER, WE HAD TO LEAN IN VERY CLOSE TO HEAR HIM.
 
"I AM A PATHETIC SACK OF S--T AND ALSO I HAVE HUGE VAGINA ENVY AND TAKE IT OUT ON HILLARY."
 
 
 
Starting with the treaty masquerading as a Status Of Forces Agreement.  Last Thursday (Thanksgiving in the US) the Iraqi Parliament passed the treaty (and, after its passage, the White House finally released some version of it to the public).  Monday's snapshot included those developments for any playing catch-up after the holiday. The treaty is back in the news today but for those who need a memory jog, Great Britain's Socialist Worker offered the following on Tuesday:
 
The Iraqi parliament has approved the Status of Forces Agreement that sets a date for the withdrawal of US combat troops from the country by 31 December 2011.   
The deal is being presented as an end to the US misadventure in Iraq.   
But it does not mark the end of the occupation.   
The US has had to back down on a series of Iraqi demands, including ending the immunity of the mercenaries who spread terror throughout the country, and giving Iraqis greater control over military operations. 
The Iraqis were also able to set a timetable for withdrawal despite the objections of the neo-cons.  
But although the deal gives the US an exist route from Iraq, thousands of US soldiers will remain in "advisory roles", and combat troops could return if the country was threatened by "internal revolt" or external threat.   
It is no wonder that George Bush is said to be happy with the pact.    
Both the Sunni resistance organisations, headed by the Association of the Muslim Scholars, and Shia Muslim supporters of rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have denounced the deal as "legitimising the occupation".   

© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.

If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.
 
Having passed the Parliament the only way it could be stopped this year was for the presidency council (made up of Iraq's president and two vice presidents) to have nixed it (which would have only required one of them saying "no").  [Next year, the treaty can be nixed if a referendrum vote -- promised, but what does that mean really? -- takes place.]   
Today Reuters reports the presidency council's given the thumbs up to the treaty between the White House and the puppet government.  CNN notes: "The three-member presidency council -- Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, Shiite Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi and Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi -- approved the agreement unanimously a week after the Iraqi parliament passed the measure."  The presidency council also approved the Strategic Framework Agreement.  Iran's Press TV explains, "The controversial agreement replaces a UN mandate -- which covers the presence of foreign forces in Iraq and is due to expire at the end of 2008 -- which was approved by Iraq's parliament last month after months of wrangling."  Asked at the White House today about the referendrum and whether it could allow the treaty to be tossed aside, spokesperson Dana Perino responded, "I know that they were thinking about having a national referendum, but since it was just finalized this morning around 7:00 a.m. our time, I haven't seen for sure.  But if there is a national referendum, Iraq is a soveriegn country and they could decide to do lots of different things with it.  But I think that the fact that their representative leadership has signed this agreement today, that they recognize that they are going to continue to need our help for the next little while."
 
What's going on?  The White House is laughing their asses off at Iraqis foolish enough to go along with the 'referendum.'  The UN mandate expires December 31st.  They need a renewal for one year.  They got it.  Or, as Barack's team might put, they got what they wanted.  If a referendum is held and Iraqis vote to break the treaty, what does that mean?
 
The treaty operates for (minimum) the year they need.  The referendum is a sidebar and it is not mentioned in the treaty.  The treaty signed off on by both parties (we'll come to the US Congress in a moment) states what for breaking the treaty?  Either the US or Iraq can do it at any time.  However, after making their intention known, the treaty runs one year.  They have to give one year's notice.  July 2009 is often mentioned for the referendum vote to be held.  Using that date, if July comes and Iraqis say, "Get out now!"?  July 2010 would be the soonest the treaty could be broken due to the one-year notice required.  So Pernio's lack of concern today centered around the fact that the referendum is really meaningless in terms of order US troops out of Iraq 'quickly.' 
 
The US Congress has not had input in the treaty.  The White House has circumvented the Constitution.and the Congress is apparently not going to stand up for either themselves or the Constitution.  When the press reports the treaty as a done-deal now due to the passage of it by the presidency council, the reason they report it as such is because Congress has done nothing since US House Rep Bill Delahunt chaired a hearing back in November.  There have been no statements issued to the press, there has been no talk of special session to address this, there has been nothing.  Where are they?  Has Iraq fallen off their radar?
 
One could argue it's fallen of the US State Dept's radar.  Today Robert Wood started the department's press briefing with, "Good morning, everyone.  I don't have anything.  We can go right to your questions."  This was the same morning that the treaty has been passed by the presidency council.  How little does the war in Iraq matter to our federal government?  Near the end of the briefing, Wood would try to pass the blame off onto the press, "Oh, by the way, one thing I should note -- I've been meaning to note -- since no one asked the question, I thought I would just raise it.  Toady, as you know, is the ratification of the -- by the presidency council of the Strategic Framework Agreement and the security agreement.  So we welcome it, and there will be an exchange of diplomatic notes -- and then the agreement will go into force January 1, 2009."  The fact that Congress refuses to do its job -- its sworn duty -- goes a long way towards not only explaining how Wood could forget to mention the treaty but also how he could declare the process finalized. 
 
On a related topic, a little truth makes it into print in the New York Times.  Thom Shanker reports that president-elect Barack Obama has backed up from his 'pledge' to have all 'troops' out within 16 months of being elected: ". . . as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months."  Huh????  Well it was never ALL US forces out of Iraq.  Barack loved to stand before his adoring and slavish crowds offering the meaningless, "We want to end the war in Iraq!" cry.  Yeah.  And?  Want to?  He didn't promise to.  His plan was "combat troops" out of Iraq within 16 months of being sworn into office (in Houston, Texas -- in February -- Barack dropped it down to 10 months after he was sworn in).Shanker quotes the Christ-child Barack stating, "I said that I would remover our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with theunderstanding that it might be necessary -- likely to be necessary -- to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq."  Translation, no withdrawal.  Surprised?  Take it up with the liars who lied for Baby Barack from day one.  Take it up with ALL THE LIARS who insisted he was the anti-war candidate and he was going to end the Iraq War and blah, blah, blah.  Now, as Mike and Elaine point out, some were little bitty babies.  Hillary wouldn't apologize for her vote!  She said it was a mistake and she wouldn't do it again if she had to do over.  What more did people want?  And, point, where was the peace movement asking Barack about his votes on Iraq?  If he was against it and wants credit for his puny (and bad) 2002 speech (the reason it was 'recreated' was because it was so damn underwhelming -- the woman in the red t-shirt is especially unimpressed as she and the tiny crowd listen to him drone on) where he said he loves war, really loves it, but feels if one is started with Iraq, it may hurt the war he wants right now in Afghanistan, well he should have been asked to admit it was a mistake to vote to fund the illegal war.  He wasn't in the Senate in 2002 but he sure voted for every war funding bill he could until late 2007.  Why wasn't he asked if that was a mistake?  Why didn't CODESTINK insist he apologize for them?
 
Or are we all supposed to ignore how PATHOLOGICALLY SICK Medea Benjamin and company have become as they target Hillary over and over even more so than they did the White House occupant who started the illegal war?  And the pattern continues among the deranged.  The incoming administration will not be run by Hillary.  It's as though Christopher Hitchens just birthed a litter of Baby Hitchys. 
 
Barack is the incoming president.  It is what Panhandle Media wanted -- at some point they might try getting honest about why -- and they need to grasp that Americans are not going to put up with four years of their demonizing Hillary and calling that 'sticking it to the president.'  She's not the president.  Barack is.  He's the one responsible and they better start tailoring their critiques to that or admit that they're nothing but the most vile women haters of all time.  (Amy Goodman confessed to that when she decided Larry F**nt's H**tler magazine was a 'magazine' to publish in.) 
 
Today the US military announced: "Two Multi-National Division - North Soldiers were killed as a result of an attack from a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosives device while conducting operations in the city of Mosul today."  The announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war to 4209.  And regardless of who is named Secretary of State, the president of the US will make the decision regarding when US service members leave Iraq.  Barack Obama is now the one who will continue or end the illegal war and the critiques need to be directed at him. 
 
 
 

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)