Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Who does Mr. Lavender Marriage think he's fooling?

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

DID YOU HEAR THE 1 ABOUT THE FELON WHO STOLE 2 MILLION AND PLED GUILTY TWICE IN 2006?

WAIT, IT GETS BETTER.

DID YOU HEAR THAT HIS WIFE SUPPOSEDLY EATS TURKISH DELIGHT -- AND WE'RE NOT TALKING FOOD.

YEAH, THAT GUY.

HE WANTS TO TELL AMERICA WHAT TO PAY ATTENTION TO.

HE INSISTS THAT CRANKY CLINTON'S CURRENT SCANDAL IS NOT A REAL SCANDAL.

HEY, OLD FOOL, WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW YOUR WIFE'S EATING OUT WOMEN AND YOU'RE GOING DOWN ON MEN, WE MIGHT GIVE A DAMN.

UNTIL THEN, JUST SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

One image may capture better than any other a feeling many Iraqis have regarding the leadership in the country.

That's from the Kitabat website and 1/2 the face is current Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi while the other half is former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

The accompanying article argues that Iraq is witnessing the struggle between Haider and Nouri -- both Dawa Party members, following Haider's announcement that the Vice President posts were being ended (Nouri al-Maliki is one of the three -- or was). The article notes that Nouri cannot win the battle by depending on popularity.

And that's a good call to make. In 2010, when he lost the election to Iraqiya, before Barack Obama and the Iranian government rescued him and insisted he get a second term, there was a long line of people opposed to him publicly -- this included the National Alliance (Shi'ite political bloc), Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr and the leadership of the Dawa political party.

The article argues that Nouri will try to seize control by utilizing the support he has from various Shi'ite militia groups including the Badr brigade and the League of Righteous.

The League of Righteous should have been dismantled (others would argue their members should be in prison or executed for the reign of terror they carried out). But they'r e not dismantled and, in fact, Mohammed al-Zaidi (Niqash) just interviewed the leader of the League of the Righteous Qais al-Khazali last week:

NIQASH: In the past few weeks you have made several statements about the need to change Iraq's political system from a parliamentary one to a presidential one. Could you explain what you're asking for and why?

Al-Khazali: Today in Iraq we have big problems and everybody knows what they are – namely state services are problematic as are strategic projects and the level of unemployment as well as a raft of other things.

The League of the Righteous believes that one of the main reasons for these problems is the sectarian quota system in Iraq. To resolve this we have suggested that a presidential system be introduced because at the moment, the Prime Minister cannot choose the members of his government. He must bend to the will of the different blocs represented in Parliament who impose candidates upon him. There's a bad atmosphere between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and its had a negative impact on the government’s work. That is why we make such demands. But such sensitive issues must be left to the Iraqi people to decide.

NIQASH: But in making these requests, some critics have said that what you are really doing is opening the door for the return of former Iraqi prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Khazali: We do not have any special relationship with Nouri al-Maliki. For example, we were not given any special positions within his government when he was in charge. Additionally we didn't join his electoral bloc during elections; in fact, we contested the elections as a completely separate list.

That's an utter lie.

First, let's drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

Long before the Afghanistan-did-he-desert-was-he-captured melodrama, Barack had already negotiated with terrorists. The League of Righteous are terrorists. And Barack released their leadership from US military custody after he entered in a deal with them to release the 5 British citizens.

The League was very public to the Iraqi press about the fact that they had a deal with the US government. They also went back on the deal for a period of time -- releasing only 1 living British citizen and the corpses of three, holding onto a forth corpse while insisting Barack hadn't lived up to all of his part of the deal.

It's a deal the American people should have known about.

To this day, the White House has never publicly been pressed to be honest about that deal or even to acknowledge it.

But several White House friends -- including ______________ -- have insisted to me over the years that the US just released the terrorists from military custody and that didn't prevent Nouri al-Maliki, who was prime minister from 2006 to 2014, from prosecuting them for their crimes in Iraqi courts and that, the argument (or lie) goes, was what was supposed to happen.

So, by that logic, Nouri's done a great deal for the League, he's kept them out of prison and out of the Iraqi courts.

He also, when no political organization was supposed to have an active militia, brought them into the political process -- despite his knowing (as did everyone) that the League was nothing but an armed militia.

They participate in politics now as a result of Nouri.

So Qais al-Khazali is both a thug and a liar.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq and the press that (mis)covers it"
"Hejira"
"Barry O and the Dronettes"
"As the kids say, 'burn!'"
"USA Today editorial board spanks Hillary"
"She's lost Henneberger"
"Idiot of the week: The felon Robert Creamer"
"Barack's definition of transparency?"
"Diana"
"More lies from Hillary?"
"the crook robert creamer and his 'wife' jan schakowsky"
"She's lousy"
"Poverty"
"THIS JUST IN! THE CHORUS AGAINST CRANKY CLINTON GROWS!"
"Defiant Cranky says the talk proves how popular she is"

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Defiant Cranky says the talk proves how popular she is

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

SUNDAY TV WAS DOMINATED BY THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CRANKY CLINTON CAN SECURE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION WITH HER SCANDAL STILL UNRESOLVED.

HOWARD DEAN, JERRY BROWN AND MARTIN O'MALLEY WERE AMONG THE DEMOCRATS PONDERING CRANKY'S SCANDAL.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY SNORTED, "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY. I'M THE TALK OF THE COUNTRY. THAT'S HOW I'LL SEW THIS UP."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with violence and oil.

One of many stories not covered. If there's news value in it, the only news value in it -- one that this Shi'ite propagandist Haidar Sumeri will never grasp -- is the strides that the Iraqi government will take to protect oil while the citizens are left to fend for themselves.

Dropping back to Thursday's snapshot:

In other poor visuals, Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi made a special visit today.

Aref Mohammed, Ahmed Rasheed, Isabel Coles and William Hardy (Reuters) note, "Hundreds of locals recently blocked some entrance to Iraq's giant southern West Qurna-2 oilfield, operated by Russia's Lukoil, demanding jobs in a sign of the growing challenges facing foreign firms operating in the south." So Haider rushed there today in an attempt "to reassure Lukoil."

Time and again, Haider puts oil first, ahead of the Iraqi people.

An now dropping back to the April 15th snapshot:

This morning, Arwa Damon (CNN -- link is video and text) reported on the situation in Anbar Province's Ramadi noting that deputy provincial council head Falih Essawi is issuing "a dire, dire warning" as the Islamic State advances.

Arwa Damon: ISIS forces, it seems, early this morning managing to enter the outskirts of the city of Ramadi from the east. This now means that ISIS is fighting on the east. ISIS advanced from the north -- taking over three towns from the outskirts there over the weekend. The routes to the south already blocked off. The city basically under siege except for the western portion that is still controlled by forces, by government forces, but that is wavering as well.

Sky News notes the three areas taken, "The militant group took the villages of Sjariyah, Albu-Ghanim and Soufiya, in Anbar province, which had been under government control, residents said." Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) observed:

Pentagon officials stopped short of saying the city was on the brink of falling. But they didn’t sound confident it would hold, either.
“The situation in Ramadi remains fluid and, as with earlier assessments, the security situation in the city is contested. The ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] continue to conduct clearing operations against ISIL-held areas in the city and in the surrounding areas of Al Anbar province,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Army Maj. Curt Kellogg, a said in a statement, using the government’s preferred acronym for ISIS. The Coalition continues to coordinate with ISF forces and provide operational support as requested.”

AFP's Jean Marc Mojon and Karim Abou Merhil sound out various Middle East experts about the prospects for victory in Anbar. We'll note this section:

“Anbar, and especially Fallujah, is like Asterix’s village,” said Victoria Fontan, a professor at American University Duhok Kurdistan, referring to an unconquerable town in the French comic book series.
The province is packed with experienced fighters and while some Sunni tribes have allied with the government, others are fighting alongside ISIS or sitting on the fence.
Local knowledge is seen as key to retaking territory along the fertile strip lining the Euphrates, where ISIS has inflicted severe military setbacks to the police and army since June.

Iraqi Spring MC notes this takes place as calls for reinforcements of government troops to be sent to . . . Baiji.

That's in northern Iraq, Salahuddin Province. These reinforcements are being sent in to protect . . . Well, not people. There are people in Ramadi who need protection. But the government forces going to Baiji are going to protect an oil refinery.

How did that work out?

Does anyone remember?

Oh, yeah, the Islamic State seized Ramadi -- which they still control today.

But, hey, that refinery in Baiji, that oil refinery is safe.

Iraq Times reports the reaction to citizens in Basra which was to protest Haider's visit. The activists noted that he traveled all the way to Basra to reassure Big Oil but he did not meet with a single local protester to address the concerns that have had them pouring into the streets for the last weeks. The report notes that the British and US Ambassadors to Iraq had lobbied Haider to visit Basra to reassure Big Oil. As Iraq Times also notes, just north of Basra is where a protester -- protesting against Big Oil -- was shot dead by security forces working for yet another foreign oil company in Iraq.

There was a time when -- even under the despicable Nouri al-Maliki -- if foreigners killed an Iraqi citizen, it would be time for immediate arrests and a kangaroo trial.

But in Haider's Iraq, foreign oil companies can kill protesters and the government doesn't even publicly object.

Basra protesters are targeted in many ways.

Zaid Benjamin ‏@zaidbenjamin 9 hours ago

#Iraq | Protesters tent in #Basra which was demolished by militants

20 retweets 4 favorites

#IRAQ شمرية العراق ‏@moonnor27 15 hours ago

shia militias crimes in 21_8_2015 Attacked protesters in #Basra Wounded protesters #IRAQ

63 retweets 29 favorites

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Cranky Clinton can handle low support

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

FROM A ONCE HIGH OF 50% SUPPORT, CRANKY CLINTON HAS FALLEN TO 39.9% OF LIKELY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED, "I CAN DO A LOT WITH 39/9% SUPPORT -- I WORKED WITH MUCH LESS TO CONTINUE MY MARRIAGE."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Let's start with the idiots.

How stupid do you have to be to do this:

Robert Jolley retweeted

John Podesta ‏@johnpodesta Aug 12

Chutzpah: Jeb blaming Obama for W's failure in Iraq. Must have forgotten it was Bush-Cheney who blew it there. Now he wants a do over? Plz..

754 retweets 1,073 favorites

Seriously?

How much of a fool and moron is Robert Jolley?

He's just a parrot for partisan spin, we get that.

He's not about anything that actually matters.

I oppose the ongoing Iraq War and have been speaking out against it publicly since 2002 in my offline life.

What has Baby Cum Pants Jolley done?

My tolerance for idiots is at an all time low.

Don't you ever pretend you give a damn about Iraq and then quote all time whore John Podesta.

Seriously, just stop Tweeting.

There's no come back for you.

Only other idiots will ever applaud you.

You belong to a movement of mass stupidity.

Dropping back to the March 28, 2007 snapshot:

Interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner (KPFA's Guns and Butter) today, professor Francis Boyle discussed how a 2003 exploration of impeachment by the Democrats was cut short when John Podesta announced that there would be no introduction of bills of impeachment because it would harm Democrats chances in the 2004 election. Speaking of the measures being applauded by much in the media, big and small, Boyle declared, "It's all baloney. All they had to do was just do nothing and Bush would have run out of money. . . . The DNC fully supports the war, that was made clear to Ramsey [Clark] and me on 13 March 2003 and nothing's changed." John Podesta, former Clintonista, is with the Democratic talking point mill (that attempts to pass itself as a think tank) Center for American Progress -- with an emphasis on "Center" and not "Progress."

See you can't Tweet or reTweet Podesta on the topic of Iraq unless you're trying to get the blood on his hands onto your own.

Here's David Swanson (in 2009, at Democrats.com) discussing Podesta's role in the Iraq War:

Boyle and Ramsey Clark presented the case for impeachment to Democratic congress members on March 13, 2003, just days before the bombs hit Baghdad. Impeachment could conceivably have prevented over a million deaths. The congress members present accepted the validity of the case, but John Podesta and others argued that it would be better for Democrats in the next election to let the war happen. We saw this same cold blooded calculation, of course, in 2007 and 2008, as the Democrats controlled the Congress and claimed to "oppose" the war while keeping it going. While Clark argued for the political advantage of pursuing impeachment, Boyle declined to address that point, preferring to stick to the facts. Sadly, electoral arguments are almost the only thing most congress members care about, and human life is not even on the list.

Need more? Here's Boyle speaking to Dori Smith (Talk Radio Nation -- link is audio and transcript) from February 7, 2007:

Francis A. Boyle: We just need one person to introduce the bill with courage, integrity, principles, and of course a safe seat. In Gulf War one I worked with the late great Congressman Henry B. Gonzales on his bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. We put that one in. I did the first draft the day after the war started. So in my opinion there is no excuse for these bills not to have been put in already. In fact, on 13 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers convened a meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to debate putting in immediate bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, to head off the war. There were draft bills sitting on the table that had been prepared by me and Ramsey Clark. And the Congressman invited Ramsey and me to come in and state the case for impeachment. It was a two hour debate, very vigorous debate, obviously all of these lawyers there. And most of the lawyers there didn't disagree with us on the merits of impeachment. It was more as they saw it a question of practical politics. Namely, John Podesta was there, Clinton's former White House chief of staff, who said he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and they were against putting in immediate bills of impeachment because it might hurt whoever their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. Well at that time no one even knew who their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. I didn't argue the point, I'm a political independent. It was not for me to tell Democrats how to elect their candidates. I just continued arguing the merits of impeachment. But Ramsey is a lifelong Democrat and he argued that he felt that putting in these bills of impeachment might help the Democrats and it certainly wasn't going to hurt them in 2004.

So when the right thing could have been done, when the Iraq War could have been stopped before it started, when everything could have been changed, there was John Podesta arguing to destroy Iraq, to destroy the lives of the Iraqi people, so that Democrats could win the 2004 elections? (For the record, the whore was wrong even when it came to electability: the Dems lost in the 2004 election -- they lost the presidency, the House and the Senate both remained under Republican control with Republicans increasing their seats -- in the single digits, but it's an increase -- in both houses of Congress.)

Who's getting the do over? John Podesta?

Again, I've spoken out against the Iraq War all along.

I'll be damned if some cheap whore tries to reTweet War Criminal John Podesta and pretend Podesta has some standing on the topic of Iraq.

US House Rep John Conyers wanted to bring charges of impeachment and that would have ended it all.

But there was John The Infected Whore Podesta saying don't impeach Bully Boy Bush because it would harm election chances in 2004.

John Podesta is the last one to ever call bulls**t on anyone -- his entire life (and that of his brother Tony) has been nothing but bulls**t and people are dead as a result, millions of Iraqis included.

Podesta should be in a holding cell waiting to be tried at The Hague.

That stupid idiots on Twitter, caught up in their own bulls**t election, want to whore like Podesta is shameful.

Here's Frances A. Boyles' statement on the 10th anniversary of the start of the illegal war:

Since this is the tenth anniversary of the Bush war against Iraq, concerning Democratic Party support for it: On March 13, 2003 Congressman John Conyers convened an emergency meeting in Washington DC at a law firm right down the street from the White House on the Eve of War to consider, discuss and debate my draft Bill to impeach Bush and Cheney to try to stop that war. He invited Ramsey Clark and me to come in and debate the case for impeachment. The debate was 2 hours long. He also invited in about 40 top NGO honchos affiliated with the Democratic Party, including John Podesta, for the debate. I will not name the rest of them here, but I will never forget these pro-war cowards and hypocrites for the rest of my life-- not including Congressman Conyers. At the end of 2 hours of vigorous debating, we adjourned with my draft Bill of Impeachment sitting on the table. As Ramsey and I walked out of the building to take our separate cabs, I turned to him and said : “ Ramsey, I don’t understand it. Why didn’t those people take me up on my offer to stay here, polish up my Bill of Impeachment immediately, and put it in right away to try to stop this war?” And Ramsey replied: “I think most of the people there want a war.” The Democrats supported that war from the get-go. And this includes the Democratic National Committee. Podesta was there on their behalf and in the name of the DNC put the kybosh on my Bill of Impeachment designed to stop Bush’s war against Iraq.

As Vanessa Williams says at the end of "Running Back To You," "Get the message? Nuff said."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Arrest warrants coming in Iraq?"
"Her worst enemy"
"And so it begins"
"Must read article"
"Illegal"
"#CRAPFILMSDON'TMATTER"
"Bad News Hillary"
"Hillary: Queen of Non-Transparency"
"Call the bookmaker"
"What makes me laugh"
"cranky clinton goes down"
"How can anyone trust Barack?"
"It's never enough for some people"
"Hillary and the others who just don't get it"
"Eric London exposes the fakes"
"Al Gore"
"That company she keeps"
"They shred the Constitution"
"it's neither funny nor cute, hillary"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY GETS EXPOSED (BUT KEEPS HER CLOTHES ON!)"
"Cranky Can't Stop Lying To You (Wise men say)"

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Cranky Can't Stop Lying To You (Wise men say)

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

IT TAKES A CRANKY!

OR THAT'S WHAT CRANKY CLINTON WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

TWICE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, CRANKY HAS INSISTED THAT SHE PUT HER E-MAIL SCANDAL INTO THE "PUBLIC ARENA" BY INSISTING THAT HER E-MAILS BE MADE PUBLIC.

TWICE SHE'S INSISTED THAT.

BUT SHE'S LYING AGAIN.

IT'S A SELF-SERVING LIE SO IT'S AT LEAST IN KEEPING WITH HER CREED.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting in the US where Hillary Clinton continues to seek the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination. This despite rumors that former US Vice President Al Gore may step into the mix. In the meantime, Hillary's apparently on a self-destruct mission as evidence by her campaign's deployment of Mad Maddy Albright.

Albright is being used to lecture/hector Jeb Bush who is seeking the GOP's presidential nomination.

Or that's what the campaign hopes.

But all Albright really does is underscore the half a million killed during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

"We think the price is worth it," Mad Maddie replied when asked by Lesley Stahl (60 Minutes) about the half-a-million Iraqi children killed due to the sanctions imposed on Iraq during Bill Clinton's presidential terms. As FAIR pointed out:

It’s worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl–a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).

During Hillary's attempt to secure the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination, Mad Maddie was always the first Hillary advisor cited when critics wanted to smear Hillary's campaign:

ALLAN NAIRN: Well, I think one thing you could say about the advisers for all the candidates who have a chance is that the presence of these advisers makes it clear that these candidates aren’t serious about enforcing the murder laws and that they’re willing to kill civilians, foreign civilians, en masse in order to advance US policy. And they’re not serious about law and order. They’re soft on crime.

And start with Clinton. Madeleine Albright, she was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there. Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading — illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion. Strobe Talbott, he was the one who, during the Clinton administration, oversaw Russia policy, a backing of Yeltsin, which resulted in turning over the national wealth to the oligarchs and a drop in life expectancy in much of Russia of about fifteen years — massive, massive death. And you have various backers of the Iraq invasion and occupation and the recent escalation, people like General Jack Keane, Michael O’Hanlon and others. That’s just Clinton.

Mad Maddie was used in 2008 to (a) demonstrate that Hillary was out of touch and (b) to underscore that long before Bully Boy Bush started the illegal war in 2003, Bill Clinton oversaw the slaughter of a half-million Iraqi children in what some foolishly saw as 'more peaceful times.'

Mad Maddie shooting off her tired yap this week only reminds people that when it comes to killing Iraqis, Bill and Hillary have been doing it for decades.

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 18 hours ago

.@madeleine is right: We can't afford another President Bush who would take us backward on Iraq and foreign policy. http://hrc.io/1hISO8P

442 retweets 889 favorites

And the world can afford another President Clinton who would kill another 500,000 Iraqi children?

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary Respon..."

"Nouri's out but Jane's got a crush on new boy Haid..."
"Cranky Clinton's really stepped in it this time"

"So Julianna Margulies really is a bitch"

"Batgirl has passed away"

"Just asking"

"That's not taking responsibility"

"more trouble for shonda rhimes"

"Hillary's e-mail scandal involves others"

"That embarrassing Cranky Clinton"

"How out of it is Hillary?"

"The reality of Clinton's e-mail scandals"

"THIS JUST IN! THE WASHINGTON POST IS ON THE CASE!"

"When it's time to state the obvious, it's time to pick up the Washington Post"

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

When it's time to state the obvious, it's time to pick up the Washington Post

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

THE COMICAL WASHINGTON POST WONDERS TODAY IF MAYBE CRANKY CLINTON ISN'T A GOOD CANDIDATE.

TODAY, THEY WONDER THAT.

AFTER THE POLLING DIPS, AFTER THE SCANDALS, AFTER 2008'S CAMPAIGN AND MARK PENN AND . . .

TODAY THE WASHINGTON POST WONDERS IF MAYBE CRANKY CLINTON ISN'T A GOOD CANDIDATE.

HOW THEY EVER BROKE WATERGATE REMAINS A PUZZLER.

FROM TCI WIRE:

Starting in Iraq where forever thug and former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki remains absent despite the focus on him. Emma Gatten (Independent) reports:

Al Mada reminds that a little over a year ago, while still prime minister, Nouri was insisting the fall of Mosul was due to foreign countries and their leaders but Parliament's investigation discovered that the chief issue was a lack of troops present in Mosul followed by the conflicts between political officials. Euronews adds, "According to the report, Maliki had an inaccurate picture of the
threat to the northern city because he chose commanders who engaged in corruption and failed to hold them accountable."

It was June 2014, when the Islamic State took over the city. Don Melvin (CNN) offers, "Mosul, a city of more than 1 million people about 250 miles (400 kilometers) north of Baghdad, is one of the most important cities in northern Iraq. Its fall to the terrorist group ISIS was followed by disastrous consequences for residents in the area."

Mosul remains under the control of the Islamic State to this day.

Kitabat reports that some members of Nouri's State of Law coalition are threatening to walk out on the Parliament if Nouri is charged with anything and that Speaker of Parliament Saleem al-Jubouri held a press conference today to note that no names could be stricken from the report and no one was above the law.

Nouri left over the weekend for what was supposed to be a brief visit to Iran -- a visit that's already expanded to days and has many wondering what exactly he is up to?

Now that he's in Iran, Nouri's become quite the chatty Cathy on the topic of reforms or 'reforms' proposed by Haider al-Abadi. While he praised these reforms while he was in Iraq, he's since changed his opinion. Nour Malas, Ali A. Nabhan and Ghassan Adnan (Wall St. Journal) report:

Mr. Maliki, who initially gave a statement of support for the government overhaul, has since appeared to question some of the measures. In local television interviews, he called the moves to eliminate the vice presidency posts and a call to allow the prime minister to replace local governors "unconstitutional."

What will happen to Nouri?

Maybe nothing at all.

Aziz Alwan (Bloomberg) reports:

The case isn’t likely to be raised to “the level of high treason,” and it’s too early to say what will happen next, according to Hameed al-Fayath, a Baghdad-based political analyst.
Though Maliki’s popularity is suffering, “he still has many supporters all over Iraq, especially among the Shiite militias that are fighting Islamic State right now, the security forces, and in politics,” he said.

Nouri has much to answer for. Last night, we noted that the press was overlooking the obvious with regards to the findings by the Iraqi Parliament on the 2014 fall of Mosul: That then-prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki had refused to nominate anyone to be in charge of the security ministries throughout his second term (2010 - 2014).

Back in July, 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."

He never filled them.

In January 2011, when they were still vacant, Ayad Allawi (the winner of the 2010 elections) stated they wouldn't be filled. The world press, always full of something other than wisdom, was insisting that, in a few weeks, Nouri would nominate someone to hold the posts.

Allawi said Nouri wouldn't and that this was a power grab.

Allawi was correct.

For four years, Iraq was without heads for the security ministries.

Which is part of the reason the military rise of the Islamic State isn't a surprise.

"THIS JUST IN! THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL TAKE A LITTLE WHILE!"
"Finally"

Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Who does Mr. Lavender Marriage think he's fooling?

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Defiant Cranky says the talk proves how popular she is

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Cranky Clinton can handle low support

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Cranky Can't Stop Lying To You (Wise men say)

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

When it's time to state the obvious, it's time to pick up the Washington Post

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix