Saturday, February 18, 2017

Honey Pot David Corn

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

  1. Very good point from a former CIA officer.



CIA HONEY POT DAVID CORN HAS TAKEN EVERY POINT HE EVER COULD FROM THE CIA -- IN EVERY ORIFICE THE GOOD LORD GAVE HIM.

SAYS CORN NUTS TODAY, "IT WAS MY EARLY ADOLESCENT AFFAIR WITH ALLEN DULLES THAT POSITIONED ME -- ON ALL FOURS -- TO BE SO RECEPTIVE TO CIA LEAKS -- THAT AND THE FACT THAT ALLEN, WHO ALWAYS MADE ME CALL HIM BIG POPPA, DIDN'T BELIEVE IN RUBBERS.  AS THE YEARS PASSED, I LEAKED SO MUCH MY CODE NAME BECAME STRETCHED OUT SPHINCTER.  AND I HAVE TO SAY, JAMES WOOLSEY WAS A REAL TIGER IN THE SHEETS.  WE BARELY HAD TIME TO PLOT MY TAKE DOWN OF REAL JOURNALIST GARY WEBB.  BUT POUND FOR POUND -- AND I DO MEAN "POUND" -- THE BEST HAS BEEN MICHAEL MORELL.  HE WAS THE FIRST LOVER I'VE HAD TO INCORPORATE MY 6 FOOT, STUFFED HELLO KITTY DOLL INTO SEX PLAY."






FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yet again, the neoliberals are out for war and eager to send other people's children off to die.  The Center For Progress is getting it's war on as we noted in Wednesday's snapshot.  And then there's Zaid Al-Ali.

He did such a bang up job working in Iraq (that's sarcasm) that he's decided he's an expert.


He has an insipid column that was apparently too pathetic for even THE GUARDIAN to run so he took to ALJAZEERA.  Here's a typical passage:

Analysts and commentators in various parts of the world claimed that Mosul's population took sides in the conflict, throwing their lot in with ISIL. A video was widely circulated on social media, supposedly showing Mosul's inhabitants stoning Iraqi army vehicles on their way out of the city - never mind that the video was actually from Sadr City in 2008.



Second sentence first: Social media is global.  Not everyone speaks or reads Arabic.  It is very easy for a posted video to be shared with unintentional misrepresentations on social media.  I really have no idea what point the idiot thought he was making with that.

The first sentence?

It's a paragraph in a September 2015 column by Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group.

A word on the International Crisis Group.  Early on, we were asked to note them by someone inhouse there and I blew it off.  We ignored them for probably the first three years.  As coverage on Iraq in the west continued to dwindle, we began to cite them.

In a perfect world, we probably would never have.  Their larger goals are in conflict with my own concepts of peace.  So I'm not a fan.

I know Joost only through his public writing.

Here's what he wrote in September 2015:


In Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s autocratic tendencies and sectarian-imbued repressive policies further alienated a Sunni population that, as soon as the opportunity presented itself, threw in its lot with the Islamic State (IS), despite the latter’s brutal rule. Iran could have acted to moderate Maliki’s behavior but neglected to do so, content that a friendly Shi’ite Islamist coalition ruled a neighbor that, barely a generation ago, had launched a destructive eight-year war against it. The Iraqi army’s collapse in the face of Islamic State’s advance in June 2014 created a security vacuum that Iranian military advisers have tried to fill by commanding urgently mobilized Iraqi Shiite militias. But what will the proliferation of such militias do for the unity of the Iraqi state, which Iran claims to want to preserve? The country’s breakup into warring fiefdoms is now a more likely scenario.


That's paragraph ten of a 21 paragraph column.

Iraq is not his focus in that column.

From his other writing does he believe the Sunni population in Iraq acts in unison?

No.

From his other non-Iraq writing, does he believe any group of people act in unison 100%?

No.

He was writing on another topic, Iran, and he did a short cut.

It happens.

I do short cuts here and hear about it.  "You say THE NEW YORK TIMES reported in September of 2012 that Barack Obama sent Special-Ops back into Iraq but there's no link because it didn't happen!"

No, there's no link because I'm not here to spoon feed you.

Check it out, we've linked to that report over 570 times since it first ran.

Here's one random example:

There's the fact that Barack sent a brigade of Special-Ops in during the fall of 2012. Tim Arango (New York Times) reported, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence." 


So after 570 times linking to it when I'm mentioning it in passing to make another point I'm still required to link to it?  A five year old article that was outright ignored in real time but that we covered in real time and that we have linked to over 570 times since?

Sorry, I don't have that time or kind of space.

Joost took a short cut because he wasn't writing about Iraq.


Joost took a shortcut.

Zaid Al-Ali lies outright which is a wrong.

Yes, there are Sunnis who support the Islamic State -- Sunnis in Iraq.

Sorry, that's reality.  If you can't deal with it, stick with lying, Zaid Al-Ali.

The majority position of Sunnis in Iraq as the Islamic State began rising was: It's not my fight.

That was conveyed in social media as well as in strong journalism done by NPR and other outlets.

The Sunnis were being persecuted by Nouri al-Maliki.

The Islamic State rises up in response to Nouri.

Nouri had made clear that Sunnis were not part of his vision of Iraq.

It wasn't their fight.

There were some Sunni Iraqis who were against the Islamic State.  They were quoted in real media early on.  They saw it as a foreign effort (the Islamic State) and read it as an incursion in the way Iraqis see Iran's attempts to expand their border (I'm referring to cartography here, not political influence -- though it doesn't get much western media attention, Iran is frequently seen as attempting to redraw the actual border it shares with Iraq).

There were some Sunni Iraqis who were horrified by what they knew of the Islamic State and were against them for that reason.

But there were some who supported them.

And you have to remember when they rose up -- it's not a fact that the western media ever gets correct because it would require them confessing to their own failure.

Iraqis had been peacefully protesting for over a year -- demonstrations and sit-ins.

And the western media that built up the Eygpt protests as the great change in the world (didn't turn out that way, did it?) ignored the protests in Iraq.

Ignored it as Nouri used the Iraqi forces to attack the protesters.

Ignored it as Nouri used the Iraqi forces to attack journalists covering the protests.

Ignored it as Nouri used the Iraqi forces to kill the protesters.

As this became the reality and Nouri began threatening the peaceful protesters blocking the road between Baghdad and Falluja, as he began calling them terrorists and speaking (publicly) of setting them on fire, that's when the Islamic State goes public.

They are the black garbed figures that show up with guns to protect those protesters.

In their earliest public form, that's what they were -- defenders of the Sunni population who protected the peaceful Sunni protesters.

And they did protect them.

Nouri didn't kill them on that road the way he did elsewhere.

That's reality.

And that's why there were some Sunnis who saw them in a better light.

That probably would have continued for some if the Islamic State had not decided it should take and hold areas.

Once it did that, it was not just extremely fundamental, it was also corrupt.



RECOMMENDED: "NYT, CNN, ABC, CBS and your employer MSNBC don't r..."
"WIKILEAKS"
"Iraq snapshot"
"We must end US counterproductive regime change war..."
"Nouri The Child Molester"
"10 great Diana Ross videos"
"THE GREAT YAWN"
"Media and music"
"why don't they show 'modern family' on the weekends?"
"The facts"
"Adele and Beyonce"
"No restart of The Cold War"
"This and that"
"Some on the left give us a bad name"
"Idiot of the week"
"Schumer fools them all"
"THIS JUST IN! CHUCKLES SCHUMER KEEPS LAUGHING!"




Thursday, February 16, 2017

Schumer fools them all

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

I agree 100% we need to look into all deleted emails that have to do with National Security. Let's start with


CHUCKLES SCHUMER IS LAUGHING AT ALL THE TURMOIL.

"I PRETEND TO HATE REPUBLICANS," HE EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS.  "BUT I VOTE WITH THEM ALL THE TIME ON REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF -- LIKE THE IRAQ WAR.  I ALSO HATE PALESTINIANS.  THESE ARE REAL GOOD TIMES FOR ME.  INSTEAD OF BEING CALLED OUT FOR MY REACTIONARY POSITIONS, EVEN A LEFTIST DEMOCRAT RUSHES TO APPLAUD ME."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Truth tellers are rare in the world.

They are even more rare when it comes to truth telling re: Iraq.


Moonnar27 has been a truth teller.  (Here's a Tweet we included here last January by Moonnar27.)




  • فقط انسخو هذا الهشتاق الانكليزي وارفقوا معه صور وفديوات جرائم الجيش الشيعي بالعراق اوصلوا صوتنا للعالم بكل الطرق لاتسكتوا





    Her truths have been brave and important.

    She has been off Twitter for over two weeks now -- her account killed.

    As the silence continues, people are worrying.



    Does anybody know @moonnor27 personally? Her life may be in danger. People have been trying to contact her phone & there's no response...





    Hayder al-Abadi is watered down Nouri al-Maliki.

    It wouldn't be at all surprising if Hayder sought out to silence her.

    Even less surprising if some Shi'ite militia did so.

    Moonnor27 may have just gotten sick of Tweeting.

    I'm sure the awful news she sees wears on her more than any of us could guess.

    But we're opening with this concern because there is good reason to worry and she's someone we have long noted.



    in the absence of @moonnor27 we remain vigilant for 4 all suffering from tyranny by & ignorence of the west


    Apparently once again sister @moonnor27 account appears to have been disabled




    An Iraqi activist goes silent.

    Her Twitter account is (again) killed.

    Where's the global interest if not concern?




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Talk Nation Radio: Is Amnesty International Promot..."
    "U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin and Thom Tillis Introd..."
    "Isakson Statement on Confirmation of Dr. David Shu..."
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq and Ida B. Wells"
    "Bill Maher can book whomever he wants"
    "Joni and Diana"
    "Bitter bitches keep attacking Susan Sarandon"
    "The corporations include the corporate media"
    "No war on Russia!"
    "npr caught lying again"
    "Don't look away"
    "Hillary the insider threat"
    "That bully down the street"
    "X-Men break?"
    "I feel sorry for him"
    "The CIA is out of control"
    "Hillary the insider threat"
    "The CIA is not America's friend"
    "I fear what comes next"
    "poor poor pitiful glenn"
    "Jess Glynne"
    "That bully down the street"
    "Chelsea Clinton doll"
    "THIS JUST IN! NEW DOLL FROM MATTEL!"






    Tuesday, February 14, 2017

    Chelsea Clinton doll

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

    NEW FROM MATTEL, THE SPOILED BABY GIVE ME EVERYTHING DOLL.

    MODELED AFTER CHELSEA CLINTON, THE DOLL COMES WITH REMOVABLE SPINE SO YOU CAN SEND HER TO CONGRESS.

    SPOILED BABY GIVE ME EVERYTHING DOLL CAN RUN FOR CONGRESS OR TRY OUT FOR THE LEAD IN THE NEXT 50 SHADES FILM.

    SHE CAN DO ANYTHING BECAUSE SHE'S NEVER ACHIEVED ANYTHING.

    MATTEL NOTES THE DOLL COMES WITH A STRONG GRIP AND WILL GRAB ANYTHING PUT IN HER HANDS.


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    Michael Knights is steaming mad.  And he takes his crazy to FOREIGN POLICY:


    On Jan. 21, the newly minted commander in chief raised his oft-repeated mantra that the United States might have offset the costs of the Iraq War by somehow seizing Iraqi oil. Six days later, he signed an executive order banning Iraqi nationals from entering the United States for 90 days and Iraqi refugees from entering for 120 days. The banned persons initially included thousands of translators and other Iraqis who risked their lives by serving alongside U.S. troops in Iraq.





    Thousands?

    No.

    As Trudy Rubin (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER) explained last week:

    By now you probably know that Trump's claim that a mere 109 visa-holders were affected was nonsense. At least 60,000 U.S. visas were canceled, causing chaos for foreign students, academics, high-tech workers, doctors who serve rural America, family members of U.S. citizens, and tourists. That's beside green-card holders - permanent U.S. residents - who were originally included in the ban (most were eventually permitted to enter).
    What you may not know is that the ban included Iraqis who held Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) issued to interpreters who helped the U.S. military. Thank heavens the Trump administration was shamed (and pressed by the Pentagon) into revising that decision. However, that affected relatively few Iraqis, since the SIV program ended in 2014; only 19 such visas were issued during the last three years, according to the State Department (around 500 cases are still in process).

    And what you probably don't know is that many other Iraqis who risked their lives helping Americans are still excluded by the ban.



    Around 500 cases are still in process.

    Knights goes with "thousands."  And forgets to note that the program ended in 2014 so these 500 cases should have had already been ruled on by the previous administration.

    But what do facts matter when you're wagging your war-on at the country as it drips pre-death?

    Michael writes:

    The good news is that the United States is not swimming against the tide of Iraqi politics. On the contrary, it has aligned itself with the political and religious mainstream. Most Iraqis don’t want their country to be controlled by outsiders. They want sovereignty, choices, and leverage.
    This is not what Iran offers. Iraqi nationalists — whether they are Shiite moderates like Abadi, U.S.-trained special forces soldiers, Sunni Arabs, or even homegrown Shiite radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr — know that it would be curtains for them as soon as the Iranian-backed factions took over Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Shiite religious leadership in Najaf is looking down the barrel of an Iranian gun. When the country’s preeminent Shiite religious authority, the 86-year-old Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, passes away, there will be a fierce scramble for spiritual leadership of Iraqi Shiites, and Iran will play hardball for this ultimate prize.
    The semiautonomous Iraqi Kurds, America’s oldest allies in Iraq, can also look forward to a new confrontation with the Iraqi government if Tehran’s proxies take over Baghdad. Just as the theocracy in Tehran constantly vents its special hatred for Iran’s Kurds, so too will the IRGC try to place Iraqi Kurds under the hammer of an oppressive state.

    The United States has a much less prescriptive vision that’s far more attractive to Iraqis: Brett McGurk, the U.S. special envoy for the anti-Islamic State coalition, has called for “functioning federalism,” power sharing between ethnosectarian blocs, and a negotiated settlement over the future status of Iraqi Kurdistan between Baghdad and the Kurds. At heart, Washington wants a strong and sovereign Iraq so that the United States can reduce its presence without ceding the country to Iran.



    So Brett's calling for what former Vice President Joe Biden called for when he was a member of the US Senate?

    And has Michael Knights forgotten how badly that went over?

    First, it was that the US was trying to destroy Iraq.

    Then you have people of all sects speak out against federalism.

    Federalism may be a good idea -- it may not be.

    But that's something for the Iraqi people to determine -- not Brett McGurk, not Michael Knights.

    Though some Shi'ites were for it, the loudest argument against it came from Shi'ites who, because they are the majority population, don't see the need to split up Iraq or its resources.


    As for aligning itself with the political and religious mainstream?

    When?

    When did the US do that?

    When the US government installed exiles who fled their country for decades and only returned after the foreign invaders ran Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad?

    Those chickens?

    Time and again, the US has backed tryants because, in the words of disgraced US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill, "Iraq needs a strongman."

    That's why, when the Iraqi people voted Nouri out as prime minister in 2010, Barack Obama nullified the votes (with The Erbil Agreement) and gave Nouri a second term.

    And, Michael Knights, you know damn well how that turned out.

    Currently, the US has installed Hayder al-Abadi as prime minister (don't we love Iraq's right to self-determination -- in theory, even if we never let them practice it).

    He's not moderate.

    He's ineffectual at best.

    No one listens to him.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "How Tiffany Smiley will Help Make VA Great Again -..."
    "Why won’t march to unite all movements include pea..."
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "The real news: the media died long ago"
    "Are we maturing or not?"
    "Like Mike said, obstruction"
    "YOUTUBE celebrities?"
    "Why does Debra Messing love homophobes?"
    "They raise 'em dumb at POLITICO"
    "Snow ice cream and the working class"
    "The dive?"
    "Obstruction?"
    "c.i.a. attempts to create chaos?"
    "Tom Hayden is and was a disgrace"

  • "Cornered Corrine"