They've lost interest

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

IT IS BEING SAID THE MEDIA HAS TURNED ON FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THAT PREMISE, THESE REPORTERS SURVEYED THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE.

ABC NEWS EXPLAINED, "HE JUST ISN'T TRENDY, YOU KNOW?"

THE CW SPOKE MORE BLUNTLY, "HE'S ABOUT AS RELEVANT TODAY AS EVAN MARRIOTT.  HE'S PARIS HILTON  TRYING TO LIVE IN A KARDASHIAN WORLD AND THAT JUST AIN'T GONNA' HAPPEN."

NBC NEWS EXPLAINED, "PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO WATCH HIM ANYMORE -- HE'S LIKE SEASON FOUR OF HEROES.  WE'RE LOOKING AT HIS RATINGS AND WONDERING, 'WHERE DID THE VIEWERS GO?"


FOX NEWS TOLD US, "IT'S SO BAD, EVEN WE ARE STARTING TO FEEL SORRY FOR HIM."

PBS STATED, "WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN A JUST A MOMENT AFTER WE COME BACK FROM OUR PLEDGE DRIVE.  WOULD YOU LIKE A SUZE ORMAN TALKING ALARM CLOCK FOR A $400 PLEDGE OR POSSIBLY A BERT AND ERNIE PLASTIC CUP FOR A $300 PLEDGE?"

NOTING THAT THEIR VIEWERS TREND OLD, CBS NEWS EXPLAINED, "THEY SEE IN BARRY O THE SON WITH PROMISE WHO TURNED INTO THE EMBARRASSMENT YOU NEVER SPEAK OF."


WHEN THESE RESULTS WERE RELAYED BACK TO BARRY O FOR A COMMENT, HE REPLIED, "YES, BUT WHAT DID UPN SAY?"

THESE REPORTERS DID NOT HAVE THE HEART TO EXPLAIN TO THE FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF THAT UPN WAS NO MORE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



In a [PDF format warning] press release noting that they were now partnering with NBC News and the Wall St. Journal for the 2014 election polling, Annenberg Public Policy Center noted the latest poll found:


71 percent of Americans said that the conflict in Iraq was not worth fighting, and 49 percent said that Washington does not have a responsibility to help the Iraqi government fight off insurgent groups.



49% is a very high number when you consider that they are opposing US President Barack Obama's so-called 'plan' for Iraq.  It's not even been a month since Barack drew vague outlines in a June 19th speech.  Yet 49% are already opposed to it.

And for good reason, it's not a plan and it backs Nouri al-Maliki -- the man whose destroyed Iraq over two terms and wants a third one.

Josh Rogin (Daily Beast) speaks with Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi:


ISIS is only one small part of a larger Sunni revolt in Iraq that sectarian groups have been preparing for years, according to Iraq’s exiled Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi. And defeating ISIS won’t stop the greater battle.
“We shouldn’t look at this development of ISIS as apart from the uprising of the Arab Sunni provinces over two years,” Hashimi told The Daily Beast in an interview from Turkey, where he has been living since the government of Nouri al-Maliki purged him in 2012 by indicting him on murder charges, then convicting him in abstentia.
“The provinces have done a peaceful Sunni revolt against the oppression, the injustice, the inhuman conditions the Arab Sunnis have been suffering for years,” he said.


The issue of 'advisors' came up in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki:



QUESTION: Okay. And let me just follow up on the advisors on the ground. Their first assessment last week was that the Iraqis may be able to defend Baghdad but are unable to sort of retake territory already conquered by the Islamic State. Has there been any update to the situation? Are they doing anything other than assessment and perhaps talking to --

MS. PSAKI: Well, assessing is certainly a part of --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- what their mandate is. But I would refer you to DOD for any updates on their work on the ground.

QUESTION: Okay. But the fact that al-Baghdadi so boldly goes to a mosque that is a well-known mosque in Mosul and within – knowing exactly where he is, his location was well known and so on, is the United States or would the United States be willing to engage militarily to ensure that, like they did back in 2004 and ’05 and ’06 when they targeted Zawahiri, that they would actually target al-Baghdadi?


MS. PSAKI: You’re familiar with the options that we always have and the President always has at his disposal, but as has consistently been the case, our focus is on the political process and encouraging that to move forward. And again, we have 300 advisors on the ground. They’re in the process of assessing, but I would refer you to DOD for any more specifics on their work.


Advisors were raised by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.  Kristina Wong (The Hill) reports:


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Wednesday the Sunni fundamentalist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) poses a threat not just to the government in Baghdad, but to the United States as well.
"This country should not make any mistake on this, nor anyone in Congress — this is a threat to our country," Hagel said while meeting with troops at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia.
"This is a force that is sophisticated. It's dynamic, it's strong, it's organized, it's well-financed, it's competent, [ISIS]. And it is a threat to our allies all over the Middle East. It's a threat to Europe. It's a threat to every stabilized country on Earth, and it's a threat to us," Hagel said.

 

Ramzy Baroud (Antiwar.com) offers this take:

Not only is Obama failing to accept even a level of moral responsibility over the current plight of Iraqis, but he is haggling to achieve some political gains from Iraq’s misery. Hundreds of US troops have been ordered back to Iraq to "assess" the fighting capabilities of the Iraqi army, and a cautious attempt at intervention is building up slowly in Washington.
Interventionism is once more permeating American foreign policy thinking; this time around, however, it is ‘soft’ intervention, although it is laden with the same kind of language and misleading references. It seems that the American government has learned so very little since the last botched effort, championed by Perle’s neocons at remaking the Middle East to its liking. 


Nouri is the problem in Iraq and he cannot bring the country together.

He is inept and he is corrupt.

If you're not grasping it, right now, while Barack's insisting the country needs a "political solution," Nouri's yet again attacking political rivals.  Rudaw reports:

Hours after Iraq’s embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accused the Kurds of harboring insurgents, the Kurdistan Region decided that Kurdish ministers appointed to the Iraqi cabinet will not be going to Baghdad.
“As a first response to Maliki’s threats, the Kurdish leadership has decided that our ministers will not attend any meetings of the Iraqi cabinet,” said an official from the dominant Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP). 
The official said that there is a consensus among all Kurdish political parties, including the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), to boycott Baghdad.

Nouri is begging the US for help and US President Barack Obama has provided him with weapons and now with US troops.  And Nouri says "thank you" by attacking the Kurds?




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: Vice presidents, violence, discussions"
"Halle Berry's Extant debuts on CBS tonight"
"Murray Delivers Remarks on VA Reform, Secretary an..."
"The Access Crisis (Joseph Chenelly, DAV)"
"OKC Dry Cleaning Franchise Owner Accepts Donated S..."
"ACLU Withdraws Support for ENDA"
"NSA Surveillance of Muslim Leader Fits Same Patter..."
"He needs Congressional approval"
"Is Hillary Is 44 correct?"
"Michael Eric Dyson needs to shut up"
"Halle's Extant"
"Extant"
"Extant"
"robert redford's doing what?"
"Jay-Jay Rosen"
"Why?"
"Lois Lerner -- the crook still on the loose"
"Drugged out Barry O sees man with horse head"
"THIS JUST IN! HE BE TRIPPING!"

Drugged out Barry O sees man with horse head

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O VISITED COLORADO AND, LAST NIGHT, WAS OFFERED A PULL ON A JOINT.

HE PASSED BECAUSE HE'D ALREADY HIT THE HARD STUFF WHICH EXPLAINS WHY HE SHOOK HANDS WITH A HORSE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PLUS SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "YOU'D BE SURPRISED WHAT YOU HAD TO DO TO GET THROUGH A DAY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  LIKE WE SAY IN DC, WHATEVER GETS YOU THROUGH THE WORKDAY."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Heads up (no, it's not about Iraq, I'm promoting a friend's show).

Academy Award winning Best Actress Halle Berry's new TV show Extant debuts Wednesday night on CBS. 

While eyes turn to Steven Spielberg's latest TV venture,  Iraq is yet again becoming an issue in elections in the US.  The mid-terms will be in November.  Tom Robb (Journal and Topics) explores some of the US House races out of Illinois.  The results are rather depressing.  US House Rep Tammy Duckworth shares her opinion which doesn't depress because Tammy Duckworth did not run as an antiwar candidate. (Her stance has been well known since she ran for Congress in 2006.  The antiwar candidate in that 2006 Democratic Party primary was Christine Cegelis.)   She's fine with advisors but "I'm against U.S. boots on the ground beyond that."  That's perfectly in keeping with Duckworth's position since she first went for public office.  Jan Schakowsky, however, has always self-presented as against the war on Iraq.  (This, of course, was before Jan condemned Progressive Democrats of America in June 2011.)  From the article:

“The President -- as I did -- opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, and he kept his promise to the American people that he would withdraw our troops from combat. Tragically, the al-Maliki government has been unwilling to work with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to build a unified, effective government to provide peace and stability in their nation. American troops cannot solve that problem,” Schakowsky said. “The United States can play a support role -- working with our allies to pursue diplomatic solutions. However, it is abundantly clear that our efforts should be focused on ending military engagement in Iraq.”


That passes for antiwar today.  One doubts Schakowsky would feel the same about Bully Boy Bush using US troops in "a support role -- working with our allies to pursue diplomatic solutions."  Schakowsky should also be asked to explain who "our allies" in Iraq are because the US isn't working with the Kurds and, thus far, has done little but prop up Nouri al-Maliki who created the current crises.

In a Foreign Policy column The Week has reprinted, Zaid Al-Ali reminds 2010 offered a great deal of promise:

Iraqis were demanding more from their politicians than mere survival. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki established a new political alliance, the State of Law alliance, which campaigned on a platform of re-establishing strong state institutions, reducing corruption, and providing adequate services to the people. The Iraqiya alliance, another large and newly formed coalition, backed a similar platform. The tantalizing prospects of establishing a new political environment and creating a stable state seemed within reach.
It never happened. Rather than consolidating these gains, several factors began working against Iraq's national cohesion as early as 2010. Maliki's government used "de-Baathification" laws, introduced to keep members of Saddam Hussein's regime out of government, to target his opponents — but not his many allies, who also had been senior members of the Baath Party. The 2010 government formation process turned out to be yet another opportunity for politicians of all stripes to grant themselves senior positions which they could use to plunder the state. When tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in February 2011 to protest corruption, they were branded terrorists and were attacked and beaten by security forces and hired thugs. Dozens were killed and thousands arrested and tortured until the protests fizzled. Meanwhile, though terrorist groups were not operating as openly as before, hundreds of civilians continued to be killed every month, particularly in Baghdad, denying Iraqis in many parts of the country even a brief period of normalcy.
At that time, Maliki began referring to himself publicly as Iraq's preeminent military leader. When the 2010 electoral results did not conform to his expectations, he demanded a recount in his "capacity as commander in chief." When he forced senior anti-corruption officials from their positions, he once again inappropriately invoked his military credentials. He called officers on their mobile phones to demand specific actions or that individuals be arrested, circumventing the chain of command. After the new government was formed in November 2010, he refused to appoint ministers of the interior and of defense, preferring to occupy both positions himself. He appointed senior military commanders directly, instead of seeking parliamentary approval as required by the constitution.
There was also much talk about the prime minister's special forces, including the Baghdad Operations Command. Groups of young men were arrested in waves, often in the middle of the night, and would be whisked to secret jails, often never to be seen again. Former Army officers, members of the Awakening, activists who complained too much about corruption, devout Iraqis who prayed a little too often at their local mosques — all were targeted. Many were never charged with crimes or brought before a judge. Under the pretext of trying to stop the regular explosions that blighted Baghdad, these individuals were subjected to severe abuse.

Thug Nouri has harmed Iraq repeatedly.  He is a lousy leader whose word means nothing.  Whether he's promising his rivals a power-sharing government or telling the press, in 2011, that he wouldn't seek a third term, his word means nothing.

Ali Mamouri (Al-Monitor) reports today on Nouri's most recent broken promise and how it led to the failure of last week's session of Parliament:

The main reason for the lack of agreement is Maliki’s insistence on retaining his post for a third term. On July 3, the former parliament speaker and the former president of the United for Reform coalition Osama al-Nujaifi announced that he was withdrawing his candidacy for parliament speaker to facilitate the task of forming the government. Maliki had conditioned waiving his candidacy for the premiership on Nujaifi waiving his candidacy for parliament speaker. But after Nujaifi agreed to the condition, Maliki reneged, and that blocked a solution to the crisis.
Regarding the first session of parliament, Sistani’s official representative said that it was “an unfortunate failure. And we hope that the political blocs will intensify dialogue to get out of the current crisis at the earliest possible opportunity.”
But after the session was adjourned for the second time, and for a month, despite the challenges facing the country, Sistani had to take a stand against Maliki. A source close to Sistani’s office told Al-Monitor that “what was attributed recently to Sistani about the fact that there were no red lines on any candidate for prime minister, is unfounded.” This means that Sistani has drawn red lines on some of the candidates.

The loss of Sistani, if true, is a body blow to Nouri's political career.

Nouri's corrupt and dishonest.  On top of that, he's a thug who tortures Iraqis, throws them in secret prisons and much more.  Nouri fled Iraq decades ago after his efforts against Saddam Hussein failed.  He spent his decades in exile railing against Saddam Hussein but the reality is that Nouri wasn't against what Hussein did.  No, Nouri was fine with it, he just wanted his sect to be the one doing the torturing and other crimes.

Nouri's focus in his exile years was on Saddam Hussein being 'evil.'  But not on 'evil' actions, just on a natural 'evil' that Hussein possessed.  When Nouri was hanging with terrorists in Iran, he gave several speeches which 'explained' Saddam Hussein was evil because he was (a) Sunni and (b) secular.

Nouri's objections to Saddam Hussein's actions were not the actions themselves.  No, Nouri only objected to the target of the actions (Shi'ites).  Granted, in the three speeches I've seen copies of, Nouri was speaking to Shi'ite radicals who were fueled on hatred of all things Sunni so one could argue Nouri had merely tailored his remarks to fit and win over the crowd.

It's also true that if he were faking his remarks back then, he could have, as he repeated them over and over, taken on those prejudices and hatreds. That would certainly explain his use of the term "terrorist" as a generic for any and all Sunnis -- from vice presidents to peaceful protesters.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri continues attacking Iraqis"
"Federal Appeals Court Rules Arizona Must End Ban o..."
"Quick post"
"Look what was found in Iraq"
"Halle Berry, Joan Rivers"
"Mistresses (April makes a new 'friend')"
"salem in further detail"
"Mistresses (Hot Mess Karen)"
"Coward of the country: Kevin Zeese"
"Halle Berry, Rosie O'Donnell"
"The man who sold the world"
"Halle Berry's new TV show starts tomorrow"
"The kids know the score"
"THIS JUST IN! THE TALK OF THE PLAYGROUND!"

The kids know the score

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

POOR FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O.

ALREADY HAILED BY AMERICANS AS THE WORST PRESIDENT SINCE WWII, HE NOW FACES STINGING REBUKES -- LIKE BEING CALLED THE 'CAN'T DO' PRESIDENT.

THESE REPORTERS SPENT THE MORNING SURVEYING CHILDREN AT LOCAL PARKS.

5% HAD NEVER HEARD OF BARACK OBAMA.

ANOTHER 7% CONFUSED HIM WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN.

THAT LEFT 88%.

OF THOSE, THE VAST MAJORITY RANKED HIM "A NO GOOD DOODY BUTT" AND FELT THAT ALTHOUGH "HE THINKS HE'S HOT SNOT ON A SILVER PLATTER, HE'S REALLY COLD BUGGERS ON A PAPER PLATE."

A WHOPPING 42% VOICED THE BELIEF THAT, DESPITE HAVING HIS OWN PERSONAL PHYSICIAN ON CALL AT ALL HOURS, BARRY O HAD NEVER HAD A COOTIE SHOT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Don't just love the pig boys?  No, I don't either.

Piggie Walter Hecht (Spectrum) wants you to know the problem in Iraq is Bully Boy Bush.  He has no knowledge to share of the years 2010 to 2014 -- Nouri's second term.  But he wants you to believe he knows what he's talking about.  He refers to "the Pottery Barn rule" which makes him look like a bigger dunce since Pottery Barn never has had a you-break-it-you-bought-it policy.  Before he was US Senator Al Franken, Al had done the research and established there was no you-break-it-you-bought-it policy at Pottery Barn.

Equally true, Hecht, Iraq isn't up for sale to foreigners.  The gall, the audacity to suggest that foreigners can and should "buy" Iraq?  I'm sorry, you modern day Columbuses, you didn't discover a brave, new land.  Like the Americas, Iraq was occupied.  In fact, Iraq is usually considered to be the birth place of civilization.

Pig boy Hecht wants you to know he understands Iraq.

He understands because he read a book by bwana L. Paul Bremer and a book by former US State Dept employee Peter Van Buren.

Pig boys never read, for example, Deborah Amos' Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile and Upheaval in the Middle East.

What is about these pig boys -- and toss in the ridiculous Thomas E. Ricks  -- that they don't think they need to read women?

Deborah Amos is a journalist.  She wasn't working for the government.  She was in Iraq to report.

I'm failing to understand how Bremer's book -- which I found very self-serving (more was to be learned from the public testimony in England's Iraq Inquiry than from Bremer's book).  Peter Van Buren wrote an interesting book worthy of praise but he's not really someone who mingled with the Iraqis, is he?

While the boys built monuments to their own egos (excessive praise and colossal wailing are two sides of the same grand ego), Deborah told the story of how the Iraq War effected Iraqis.

Her book topped the community's list for 2010 in books with Martha and Shirley observing, "Amos' book is moving throughout but especially when she's charting what refugee status means for a number of Iraqi women -- late nights in clubs attempting to turn a trick in order to support their families.  Amos is covering the realities of the Iraq War that so few have."

Deborah wrote a great book.  She's not the only woman who's done that with the topic of Iraq. At Third, we did a series on the 10 most important books of the last ten years and "Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad" was one of our selections:

One of the few books addressing the effects of the war on the ground -- as opposed to War Porn glorifying the US military 'kills' -- is Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad: A Story of Identity -- My Own and What it Means to be a Woman in Chaos which charts her journey to Iraq, as an American (and an Arab), to help the women of Iraq and what she ends up learning from and of Iraqi women. Omar was with the US Institute of Peace and in Baghdad from 2003 to 2005.

Unlike Thomas E. Ricks or George Packer, we weren't afraid to note women in our list:  "Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking," "Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected," "Chris Hedges'Death of the Liberal Class," "Shirley MacLaine's I'm Over All That," "CCR's Articles of Impeachment Against Bush," "Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad," "Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream," "Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price's Courting Justice," "Anthony Arnove's Iraq: The Logic Of Withdrawal" and "Tori's Piece by Piece."  Laufer and Arnove made the list with Iraq as a topic and I'd also argue that Susan Faludi's penetrating book The Terror Dream has a lot to do with Iraq (and Afghanistan).

It takes a special ignorance blended with arrogance to believe books by people like Bremer -- where Iraqis are, at best, minor supporting character and, at worst, extras -- are going to provide you knowledge of Iraq and its people.  And you can see it in this sentence Hecht typed, "Iraq was not and is not ready for democracy and free market capitalism; Iraq may never be ready."

Who are you to say whether or not Iraq is "ready for democracy"?  That's really up to Iraqis.  As for "free market capitalism," they can be "ready" or not but that will be there decision.  And "free market capitalism" is not the end all be all to solve every problem.  They may choose another economic model, they may revert more strongly to the model they had prior to 2003.  That's their decision.  And when it's treated as though these two things are 'baby steps' to be taken by Iraq, you really insult and infantalize a people and a culture that outdates your own so you might want to pull your nose out of the air.

As for what's happening in Iraq now, Eli Lake (Daily Beast) reports voices were warning the administration -- for years and years:

At the time, senior Obama administration officials went out of their way to proclaim just how impossible-to-predict the collapse of Mosul was. But interviews with a dozen U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials, diplomats, and policy makers reveal a very different story. A catastrophe like the fall of Mosul wasn’t just predictable, these officials say. They repeatedly warned the Obama administration that something like this was going to happen. With seemingly no good choices to make in Iraq, the White House wasn’t able to listen.
“It’s simply not true that nobody saw a disaster like the fall of Mosul coming,” Ali Khedery, who served as a senior adviser at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, told The Daily Beast. “I can’t speak for anyone else, but I literally predicted this in verbal warnings and in writing in 2010 that Iraq would fall apart.”


Ali Khedery had a very important column last week.  Mike noted it in "Reading assignment for Joel Wing and other nut jobs," Rebecca noted it in "and f**k you, tom hayden," Kat in "Joe Biden, another politician of broken promises," Marcia in "Barack's betrayal of Iraq," Ann with "Barack backed Nouri, remember that" and Trina in "The idiot Chris Hill."

The column is  "Why we stuck with Maliki -- and lost Iraq" (Washington Post) and at Third we noted it in "Truest statement of the week" and "Truest statement of the week II."


In a meeting in Baghdad with a Petraeus-hosted delegation of Council on Foreign Relations members shortly after the 2010 elections, Maliki insisted that the vote had been rigged by the United States, Britain, the United Nations and Saudi Arabia. As we shuffled out of the prime minister’s suite, one stunned executive, the father of an American Marine, turned to me and asked, “American troops are dying to keep that son of a b---- in power?”
[. . .]
On Sept. 1, 2010, Vice President Biden was in Baghdad for the change-of-command ceremony that would see the departure of Gen. Ray Odierno and the arrival of Gen. Lloyd Austin as commander of U.S. forces. That night, at a dinner at the ambassador’s residence that included Biden, his staff, the generals and senior embassy officials, I made a brief but impassioned argument against Maliki and for the need to respect the constitutional process. But the vice president said Maliki was the only option. Indeed, the following month he would tell top U.S. officials, “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” referring to the status-of-forces agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq past 2011.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq falls apart (politically) again"
"Hejira"
"Nouri is said to be "playing with fire""
"I Hate The War"
"National Lawyers Guild Submits Comments for Improv..."
"U.N. officials condemn Detroit water shutoffs (Dav..."
"Keeping Rosy - it's hard to find a rosy future in ..."
"Celebrating Independence from America in England"
"Privacy Board Report Strongly Suggests Attorney-Cl..."
"Thug Nouri still wants a third term, White House t..."
"Kurdish gains of more than a decade are under thre..."
""Genocide on Its Way for Russian Speakers in Ukrai..."
"Chairman Miller Statement on Nomination of Robert ..."
"Iraq and other things"
"How stupid is Bill Maher?"
"salem"
"Gerry Goffin"
"The spier in chief is the liar in chief"
"All About Fran"
"There's no whore like a Ruth Conniff whore"
"The crooked Barack"
"I'm getting sick of White Hollywood Liberals"
"David Rovics"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Yeah, Barack lied again (and again)
• TV: Overt Affairs
• The summer's self-help book
• The deal too good to be true
• The Diaries of Tom Hayden
• Trees
• Where is stupid Sven?
• Extant
• This edition's playlist
• The Summer Read Edition
• Highlights

"They are called jokes"
"THIS JUST IN! CULT OF ST. BARACK IS OFFENDED YET AGAIN!"

They are called jokes

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

CAN WE TALK?

JOAN RIVERS JOKED FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O WAS GAY AND FIRST LADY SHE-HULK WAS TRANSGENDER.

'OH THE HORROR!' CRIED THE CULT -- AS SOFT AND SOFT BRAINED AS THEIR FALSE GOD.

THE HORROR?

THIS IS JOAN RIVERS.

JOAN RIVERS WHO ONCE DID A BIT MOCKING ELIZABETH TAYLOR CHOCKING ON A CHICKEN BONE -- SOMETHING THAT HAD HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE.

SO JUST GROW THE F**K UP, YOU BIG BABIES.

THEY'RE JUST JOKES.

THE CULT OF ST. BARACK REALLY NEEDS TO BE PUT ON PROZAC AND THEY ALSO NEED TO GET AN EDUCATION THAT GOES BEYOND READING YOUNG ADULT FICTION.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Today at the Pentagon, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel addresses the issue of Iraq.

Secretary Chuck Hagel:  And I'd like to focus a couple of comments on Iraq as I -- as I start.
Our efforts here at DOD have been focused on two specific missions. And I want to lay a bit of a framework down and a base down on what those missions are and then I know you'll have questions.
But in a very clear, deliberate way, first securing our embassy, facilities and our personnel in Iraq.
Second, assessing the situation in Iraq and advising the Iraqi security forces.
Both of these missions are important components of the president's overall strategy in Iraq, helping Iraq's leaders resolve the political crisis that has enabled ISIL's advance and supporting Iraqi forces.
By reinforcing security at the U.S. embassy, its support facilities in Baghdad International Airport, we're helping provide our diplomats time and space to work with Sunni, Kurd, Shia political leaders as they attempt to form a new inclusive national unity government.
By better understanding the conditions on the ground and the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, we'll be better able to help advise them as they combat ISIL forces inside their own country.
Approximately 200 military advisers are now on the ground. We have established a joint operations center with Iraqis in Baghdad and we have personnel on the ground in Erbil where our second joint operations center has achieved initial operating capability.
Assessment teams are also evaluating the capabilities and cohesiveness of Iraqi forces. None of these troops are performing combat missions. None will perform combat missions.
President Obama has been very clear that American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again. The situation in Iraq, as you all know, is complex and it's fluid. But there's no exclusively military solution to the threats posed by ISIL. Our approach is deliberate and flexible. It is designed to bolster our diplomatic efforts and support the Iraqi people. We will remain prepared to protect our people and our interests in Iraq.
As most Americans enjoy this holiday weekend, our military around the world, and especially in the Middle East, will stay postured and ready for any contingency in that region.

As we celebrate Independence Day tomorrow, I want to particularly express my gratitude to the men and women and their families who serve our nation at home and abroad, both civilian and in uniform. I thank you all for what you do to keep our country safe every day.


Okay, before we get to the questions, let's again restate the obvious: US President Barack Obama has refused to put forward a concrete list of actions for how the US can 'help' Iraq.  This probably goes a long way to explaining the results in the recent Quinnipiac poll.

CNN reports, "The poll also indicates that most say it's not in the national interest to get involved in the fighting in Iraq and oppose sending U.S. ground troops to help the Iraqi government, which is trying to hault an aggressive drive by radical Sunni militants who have captured city after city in northern and central Iraq as they march towards Baghdad."

If today's Pentagon press briefing was an honest attempt at informing the people, it failed tremendously.

Even General Dempsey could not explain what the White House has planned for Iraq.



Q: For General Dempsey, to begin with.
Sir, at the beginning, the Pentagon said one of the objectives was to break the momentum of ISIS.
So my question is very specific, not to the assessments. But what is your measure of success in doing that? How do you know that -- how much do you break the momentum? How do you know, mission accomplished this time, that you can say to the president, "We have achieved those objectives"?
And is it enough for the Iraqi forces simply to be able to hold Baghdad? Is the measure of success that? Or is it the Iraqi forces able to go north and regain this massive territory that ISIS has right now?
Are you -- is the United States military prepared, if they have to, to defend Baghdad and defend the airport?


GEN. DEMPSEY: So the questions get more and more complex as we go.

Q: We haven't seen you in a long time.


GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, I know you haven't. Well, you know, it's impossible to wrestle the podium away from John Kirby.
The -- I don't think you've ever heard me say that we would break the momentum.

Q: Actually, Admiral Kirby said it.


GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, I told you. That's my problem.
The issue is for us -- has been for us to determine the ability of the ISF after having suffered some initial setbacks to be able to stabilize the situation and eventually go back on the offensive to regain their sovereign territory and what will we be willing to contribute to that cause. And that's not a question that we're prepared to answer just yet.
In terms of -- you know, you mentioned the airport and you mentioned our intentions. Remember, the phrase I used was that we are protecting that which would allow us to preserve options. And the airport, not the entire airport, but that part of it that we need for logistics, resupply and potentially for evacuation, we are protecting that part of the airport for that purpose.
It's -- it really is about deliberately first preserving options and then developing options. And if you are asking me, will the Iraqis, at some point, be able to go back on the offensive to recapture the part of -- of Iraq that they've lost, I think that's a really broad campaign-quality question.
Probably not by themselves. It doesn't mean we would have to provide kinetic support. I'm not suggesting that that's the direction this is headed. But in any military campaign, you would want to develop multiple actions to squeeze ISIL. You'd like to squeeze them from the south and west. You'd like to squeeze them from the north and you'd like to squeeze them from Baghdad. And that's a campaign that has to be developed.

But the first step in developing that campaign is to determine whether we have a reliable Iraqi partner that is committed to growing their country into something that all Iraqis will be willing to participate in. If the answer to that is no, then the future is pretty bleak.


So, with hundreds of US troops sent back into Iraq, what is the plan?

The best Dempsey can offer is that there's a "first step" in which the US will "determine whether we have a reliable Iraqi partner that is committed to growing their country into something that all Iraqis will be willing to participate in.  If the answer to that is no, then the future is pretty bleak."

Right now it appears the future is pretty bleak.  It's a shame this couldn't have been determined before hundreds of US troops were sent into Iraq in the last weeks.

The press wasn't just taking dictation in the briefing.


Q: Yes. Again, General Dempsey, what you just described sounds like an open-ended commitment or mission for the U.S. military. A stable Iraq, an inclusive government, the ability to force ISIL into some find of retreat or submission sounds like a long-term effort. What is the end game? When will the president be able to say, "let's bring our boys home"?

GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, first of all, this is not 2003. It's not 2006. This is a very different approach than we've -- than we've taken in the past. I mean, assessing, advising and enabling are very different words than attacking, defeating and disrupting.


Okay, so it was "attacking, defeating and disrupting" and now it's "assessing, advising and enabling."  Who knew that for every trillion dollars a nation wastes on an illegal war, Collins Reference tossed in a Roget's Thesaurus?  Apparently, they tossed in a calendar as well allowing Dempsey to grasp that it was neither 2003 nor 2006.

Dempsey then went on to explain that US troops on the ground may, in fact, despite the claims otherwise, be involved in "direct action."  He stated, "We may get to that point if our national interests drive us there; if ISIL becomes such a threat to the homeland that -- that the president of the United States, with our advice, decides that we have to take direct action. I'm just suggesting to you we're not there yet."

And when reporters hear this and ask about it?  A lot of spinning takes place.


Q: Mr. Secretary, you said the advisers would not be involved in combat. General Dempsey, you have raised the possibility that those advisers could be used as forward air controllers in the event that you called in air strikes, which I think most people would regard as being involved in combat. So, which is it on that?
And second, you mentioned that the Iraqis, to go on the offensive, would most likely to need help in logistics, which sounds like a prescription for sending in more U.S. advisers, troops, opening up supply depots. Is that on the table?

GEN. DEMPSEY: You know, there's a tendency to think of this as kind of industrial-strength, you know, where we're going to put a mountain of supplies someplace, and then that's going to require us to protect it, and then we've got to move it forward into the hands of the Iraqis to ensure that they use it and use it responsibly and effectively.
And that's -- that's obviously one possibility, but it's not one that personally I think the situation demands. I think the situation demands first and foremost that the Iraqi political system find a way to separate the Sunnis who have partnered now with ISIL, because they have zero confidence in the ability of Iraq's politicians to govern.
If you can separate those groups, then the problem becomes manageable and understandable and allows us to be in a position to enable Iraq, not with a huge industrial-strength effort, but rather with the special skills, leadership and niche capabilities that we possess uniquely. And there's no daylight between what an adviser will do.
We haven't made -- right now as we sit here, the advisers are categorically not involved in combat operations. They're literally assessing. That's their task. If the assessment comes back and reveals that it would be beneficial to this effort and to our national security interests to put the advisers in a different role, I will first consult with the secretary. We will consult with the president. We'll provide that option and we'll move ahead. But that's where we are today.

Q: (inaudible) -- will not be involved.

SEC. HAGEL: Well, I think the chairman made it very clear. These are assessment teams and that's their mission. Their mission is limited and it is a clear scope of what their mission is, and it is to assess. It is to come back with their assessment of where they believe we are regarding ISF, ISIL, and all the other dimensions that I -- let me finish -- that I said.
Advisers or what may come as a result of any assessments as to what they would come back to General Dempsey with or General Austin, and eventually me and eventually the president, I don't know where they're going to be. But their mission today is making those assessments. So I think the general was pretty clear.

Q: But their mission could change.

SEC. HAGEL: That wasn't your question. 


Actually, it was: "Mr. Secretary, you said the advisers would not be involved in combat. General Dempsey, you have raised the possibility that those advisers could be used as forward air controllers in the event that you called in air strikes, which I think most people would regard as being involved in combat. So, which is it on that?  And second, you mentioned that the Iraqis, to go on the offensive, would most likely to need help in logistics, which sounds like a prescription for sending in more U.S. advisers, troops, opening up supply depots. Is that on the table?"  The entire question was based on the mission changing.

And because Barack has failed to clearly define the US mission, Hagel's left to snap, "That wasn't your question."


Hagel went on to insist, "We have one mission today, and that's assessments. I don't know what the assessments are going to come back and say or what they would recommend. We'll wait to see what that is, what General Austin and General Dempsey then recommend. But, that's the whole point of assessments."

Is that the whole point of assessments?

Thank you for sharing that.  But at what point is a clear mission presented to the American people?

General Dempsey spoke of Iran, "On Iran. Look, anyone who's served in Iraq through the years knows that Iran has been active in Iraq since 2005. So, the -- the thought that they are active in Iraq in 2014 is completely unsurprising. Now, it's probably more overt than it has been up until now. And as you know, they -- they, too, have come over to in some ways advise this call for -- for young Shia men to rise in the defense of their nation that Sistani made.  By the way, when Sistani made that proclamation, he talked about an Iraq for all Iraqis. I hope so. We'll see. That's a question that has yet to be answered. But the Iranians are there, as you know. They're also flying some unmanned aerial vehicles, and they have, as you described, provided some military equipment. I don't know whether it has violated any Security Council resolutions. That will have to be determined.  In terms of whether we intend to coordinate with them or not, we do not intend at this time to coordinate them. It's not impossible that in the future we would be -- we would have reason to do so. In terms of de-conflicting, let's take the airspace. That's sovereign Iraqi airspace. So the de-confliction of our ISR and their ISR and our flights and their flights, that's an Iraqi responsibility which they are capable of fulfilling."





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The always abdicating US Congress"
"Acting Secretary Gibson Meets with Special Counsel..."
"Government Privacy Watchdog Signs Off on Much of N..."
"Reading assignment for Joel Wing and other nut jobs"
"and f**k you, tom hayden"
"The idiot Chris Hill"
"Tammy"
"A movie plea"
"Joe Biden, another politician of broken promises"
"Son of a Bush"
"Barack's betrayal of Iraq"
"A few thoughs on Hillary"
"Barack backed Nouri, remember that"
"As C.I. told you, Barack is prepping for possible combat in Iraq"
"Pig boy Barack"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O'S WAR ON WOMEN! "

Pig boy Barack

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

ON THE HEELS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DECLARING FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O THE WORST PRESIDENT SINCE WWII COMES NEWS THAT HE'S STILL THE LITTLE PIGGY WHO, CAMPAIGNING AGAINST HILLARY, FELT THE NEED TO MENTION 'CLAWS' AND 'PERIODICALLY' AND SO MUCH MORE.

THOUGH MS. MAGAZINE SHAMED THEMSELVES FOREVER BY TOSSING HIM ON THE COVER AND PROCLAIMING HIM THE FACE OF FEMINISM, BARRY O IS THE MAN WHO LOVES MEN -- SWEATY MEN ON THE GOLF COURSE, SWEATY MEN PLAYING HOOPS.  HE SHUTS WOMEN OUT EVERY CHANCE HE GETS.  AND NOW COMES MORE DISTURBING NEWS:

The pay gap between men and women working at the White House has not narrowed since President Barack Obama’s first year in office, according to a new report, despite Obama’s emphasis on pay equity ahead of the midterm elections.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BARRY O INSISTED THE PAY GAY WAS NO PROBLEM, "IF THE GIRLS NEEDS A FEW MORE BUCKS, THEY CAN ASK THEIR HUSBANDS."




FROM THE TCI WIRE:



First off, US President Barack Obama is polling very poorly these days.  Cedric and Wally noted it in their joint-post this morning:

 Cedric's Big Mix

Barry O takes it hard!

7 hours ago

The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! HE'S THE WORST!

7 hours ago 

Alsumaria notes it here.  And, possibly as a result of this latest poll, two White House friends asked if I would note this.  The White House has created a webpage for people to follow what is going on in Iraq -- US efforts and otherwise.  I said I would note it and I have -- however, a page they're pushing that hasn't updated since June 19th?  Not sure how that's going to restore any confidence in the White House.


What is The Huffington Post?

It has no consistency whatsoever.  Two idiots were whining -- and you know their idiots because Bernie Sanders has since linked to them -- about the 'groovy' men who were right about Iraq all along.  Ava and I took on the idiots nonsense in "TV: The useless huffing and puffing of flaccid men" Sunday at Third.  The HuffyPost whined about one man after another being blocked out and we explained why the HuffyPost chose bad people to root for.  We'll use Kent Conrad here as an example:

They started with former US Senator Kent Conrad.  He, they informed you, was one of 21 senators to vote against the Iraq War.
They then thunder over the refusal of networks to book Kent!
Oh, the horror.
Poor Kent Conrad!
Not booked for TV because he took a stand against the Iraq War.
Or maybe not booked because he's off putting on TV?
His voice irritates.
But the Huff Post never wants to offer facts, mind you.
So they pretend that Kent's being overlooked because he was right.
Was he right about Countrywide Financial?
Because that is why he left the Senate, didn't run for re-election, remember?
Yes, a Democratically controlled ethics panel did say he hadn't broken the law.
But the financial scandal touched him since he was pro-Countrywide and they'd been so very generous to him with loans.
It's called corruption and most hosts would be leery booking someone like Kent Conrad as an 'expert.' That'd be like booking pedophile Scott Ritter.
And then there's that other detail: "former" senator.
Today, on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News and CNN, Iraq will be addressed by the following officials:  US President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton, former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator John Barrasso, US House Rep. Peter King, U.S. House Rep. Mike Rogers, and former NSA director and CIA director Michael Hayden.
Please note, all members of Congress?
They're currently serving.
No Congressional member invited on is a 'former' member of Congress except maybe Barack who is, after all, a sitting president.
So Kent Conrad, who left the Senate in disgrace, who chose not to run for re-election because of the Countrywide scandal?
He's really not the ingredients for a solid argument.

So HuffPost is now in the position that Congressional members receiving favors from banks is a good thing? Didn't Arianna entitle one of her books Pigs at the Trough and weren't those pigs supposed to be seen as a bad thing?

Regardless, the bad piece Ava and I took on was two (bad) writers arguing their personal faves were being shut out while those who helped the war -- booster, supporter, planner, whatever -- were getting media attention today and invited to pen columns and appear in the media.


Can we have a little consistency?  Is that too much to ask?

Huff Post was insisting over the weekend that the pro-war voices needed to be shut out today.  So today they run garbage written by dimwit Ibrahim al-Marashi?

For those who don't know or just don't remember, al-Marashi wrote the Middle East Review of International Affairs article "Iraq's Security & Intelligence Network: A Guide & Analysis."  This ended up as part of Colin Powell's blot.  His 2003 UN speech arguing for war on Iraq lifted who passages of al-Marashi's article -- without crediting them as borrowed.  So even a dim bulb at Huffington Post should be able to grasp that al-Marashi's work argued for war on Iraq and was used by the US and British government to argue for war on Iraq.

So why, today, is Huffington Post running al-Marashi's ""?

I'm not saying he should be shut out of the conversation.  But I haven't called for any to be shut out except those who lied (getting it wrong is not the same as lying).

Again, is consistency from Huffington Post too much to ask for?

The article in question is laughably bad and entitled "These Are the Three Most Common Myths About What's Happening in Iraq."

In the first 'myth,' this writer whose work was an embarrassment in 2002 and 2003 wants to take on history.  Robert Fisk and others -- including many historians -- have made the argument regarding the WWI partitioning of Iraq  and its possible consequences.  I've never made such an argument.  I'm happy to entertain one but I'm just not that interested or vested in it.  I don't dispute it or slam those who are interested in that argument.  And I certainly wouldn't call it a myth.

Then the idiot wants to take on the 'myth' of sectarian divisions.

That's not a myth and he's an idiot.

Shi'ites were persecuted under Saddam Hussein.  Like many, I stupidly ignored that during the first years of the Iraq War.  As more and more Iraqi Shi'ites contacted this site over the years, I realized that I was the one in the wrong.  Saddam's government included many Shi'ites.  There's no way the system couldn't, they were the majority of the population (and still are).  But there were those -- especially those who did not embrace secularism -- who felt persecuted and were persecuted.

The US deepened the divisions.  Laura Flanders loved to go into that when she had her radio shows.  By asking who was a Sunni and who was a Shia, the US military was reinforcing a division.

You know what?

No.

That's a minor thing.

You can blow it off as 'dumb foreigners' if you're an Iraqi.

Here's where the US deepened the division: Installing Shi'ites opposed to Hussein who had fled the country.  Nouri and so many others returned with chips on their shoulders, scores to settle and grudges to f**k.  These people, installed into the government by the US, went about staging holy wars.  If they had a real beef,  (a) grown ups learn to get over it and (b) Saddam Hussein was executed.

So why does Nouri still target and attack the Sunnis.

As Lily Tomlin's wise Edith Ann once observed, "To get back is to go back."

The third myth?

The idiot wrote:

Maliki became prime minister in 2006 because the U.S. believed he would be a compromise candidate that could reconcile Iraq's factions. Calls, particularly in the U.S., for Maliki to step down would not resolve the current crisis, as there are no guarantees that his successor will resolve political differences between Iraqis.
Ironically, America's stance has made it harder for Maliki to step down. The Iraqi elections do not elect the prime minister but rather the party that choses the prime minister.

Let's deal with the last sentence first.  They do not, the elections, elect "the party that choses the prime minister."  This is bad interpretation of the Iraqi Constitution, first and foremost.  Second of all, this argument (well made or poorly) became null and void by a court decision in 2010.  It is now the post-election period in which alliances are made and formed and the group that does that successfully is the one who gets first show at prime minister-designate.  (Not even prime minister, but, hey, when have we ever expected idiots writing for The Huffington Post to actually possess a functioning knowledge base?)

Let's go back to the first part:

Maliki became prime minister in 2006 because the U.S. believed he would be a compromise candidate that could reconcile Iraq's factions. Calls, particularly in the U.S., for Maliki to step down would not resolve the current crisis, as there are no guarantees that his successor will resolve political differences between Iraqis.

That's not the argument being made and I know since I put it forward here on April 12th and put it forward to members of Congress, two think tanks and White House friends in the days after.

What is termed 'al-Qaeda' in Iraq is actually a group of bodies.  Their only common issue at present is opposting to Nouri's rule.
Want to break them up right now?  Pay attention, Barack -- remove Nouri from power.
That requires no troops.  It only requires an honest election (as took place in 2010) and that the results be honored (which did not happen).
If Nouri is not prime minister for a third term, you're going to see the bond that binds the various groups break away.
Violence, once another person is named prime minister-designate, could actually fall as a result.

I was not arguing -- read "I Hate The War" in full as well as what we did the following day at Third in "Editorial: If the US wants to reduce the violence ..." -- that violence would vanish and rainbows would pour out of gun barrels while grenades turned into candy.  I was arguing that Nouri's oppression of so many had made him a common enemy.  That his track record meant he would not be able to lead the people to a new Iraq.  I was arguing that a new prime minister would be a 'reset.'  Not a cure, a reset.  It would allow a brief window of time for people to wait and see if this was going to usher in an inclusive Iraq or not.

Iraqis who are participating in the violence?  The bulk don't want to be.  They've been pushed into this by 8 years of Nouri's policies which have targeted them, disappeared their loved ones and so much more.

Nouri gone doesn't mean Iraq finds peace.  It could mean, Iraq gets a few weeks -- maybe even a few months -- of lower violence (lower -- I'm not saying violence goes away) as the country has a chance to collectively take a breath.

At Kitabat, Khadr Ramahi argues that Ayad Allawi might be able to pull off the reset.

Unlike the idiot of The Huffington Post, I don't like writing about this.

Why?

I'm not a half-wit.

While Prime Minister New could lower levels of violence, Prime Minister New could also do a few weeks or months of pretend actions while he or she uses that time and this pretend move forward to weaken the resistance and pick them off.

I hope that does not happen but it could.  The fear of this happening is, in part, behind the reluctance of some to get behind Tareq Najm as the next prime minister-designate (due to his closeness to Nouri). Kitabat notes strong pressure coming down on the Sadrist bloc and Ammar al-Hakim's bloc to accept Tareq for the post.

I wrote what I wrote -- and advocated for it to officials -- because it was before the elections and if the US government had stepped away from Nouri at that point -- even State Dept friends (including two officials who both called May 30th and asked me to walk them through what they'd dismissed in April) -- it could have made a difference in the election.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Barack tells the American people one thing while p..."
"VFW STATEMENT ON VA SECRETARY NOMINATION"
"Department of Defense Press Briefing by Rear Adm. ..."
"$10.10-An Hour Minimum Wage Campaign Is A REALLY B..."
"bert ramsey is dead, delia reid ryan coleride is back"
"Why I hate fan bois and girls"
"Begin Again"
"The bloom is off the rose, Barack"
"Maleficent"
"A special investigator is needed"
"A film"
"Hillary's chances don't look good to me"
"Jewel and privacy"
"Margaret Kimberley breaks it down to basic truths"
"Barry O takes it hard!"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S THE WORST!"

Barry O takes it hard!

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

HARD TIMES AT THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY AS A NEW POLL FINDS AMERICANS DECLARING FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THE WORST PRESIDENT SINCE WWII.

"I WON!" EXCLAIMED A GIDDY BARRY O UNTIL VALERIE JARRETT PULLED HIM TO THE SIDE TO EXPLAIN THIS WAS BAD NEWS.

WHISPERED V.P. JOE BIDEN TO THESE REPORTERS, "EVEN I'M NOT THAT DUMB!"

A CRESTFALLEN BARRY O WIPED A TEAR AWAY AS HE TURNED TO THOSE ASSEMBLED AND ASKED, "BUT I'M STILL PRETTY, RIGHT?  I'M STILL PRETTY?"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Today US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to China Central Television (CNTV -- link is video).  Excerpt.


Wang Guan: John Kerry, you just came back from Iraq.  Now looking back at the turmoil -- this is something you have been very engaged in. Do you think the previous administration in Iraq in 2003 was, as some call, a grave mistake?  And what will the US do next?

John Kerry:  Well I am on record historically not only in saying that it was a grave mistake but in running against the president who ordered it and offering an alternative.  So I'm-I'm hardly capable of [Kerry laughs] ducking that squarely.  Yes, I think it was a grave mistake and I think we are still working through many of the problems associated with it even today.  There's a huge, residual hangover, a cloud, that hangs over the region as a consequence of that decision.  Now we are working very hard.  President Obama's decision was to make certain that we tried to change that and that's why he moved to withdraw the combat troops.  And now we're working very, very hard to empower the Iraqis themselves, they have to make this decision.  Iraqis have to decide who their government is.  And it needs to be a representative, unity government that brings people together and it resolves through it's reforms -- in terms of its relationships to the Kurds, it's relationships to the Sunnis -- Everybody, and the Shia, all have to be feeling as if their needs are being met through the governmental processes and structures that are established.  That's what we hope will emerge through the Iraqis themselves and their decisions in the next few days. 


"I'm on record historically not only in saying that it was a grave mistake"?  "Offering an alternative"?

I'm sorry, that's just not true.  I backed John Kerry in the Democratic Party primaries.  Many of my friends were for Howard Dean who presented as an anti-Iraq War candidate.  I remember their disgust with Kerry in the primaries and after he won the party's presidential nomination.

I like John, I supported his primary campaign and general election campaign (even though he chose John Edwards for a running mate -- Mr. Grabby Hands was also a snake in the grass who fed the press anti-Kerry remarks after the campaign was over).  That doesn't mean I stay silent while he rewrites history.  I -- and many of his other 2004 supporters -- wish he had called it a "grave mistake" and that his 2004 campaign was "offering an alternative" but that simply was not the case.

August 10, 2004, CNN reported:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.
Bush's campaign has challenged Kerry to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he stood by the October 2002 vote which gave Bush authority to use military force against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The question of going to war in Iraq has become a major issue on the campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found there.

Read the full article.  He's bothered by the planning of it. he's whining about tactics.  But the war was based on lies, there were no WMDs -- and that was well known by August 2004.  But he wasn't calling out the lies of WMD, he wasn't retracting his 2002 vote (except for the ridiculous "I was for it before I was against it" statement).


Today was supposed to be the big day to resolve everything political in Iraq via a session in Parliament.   Supposed to be.  June 20th, Tamara Keith (Morning Edition, NPR -- link is text and audio) reported on US President Barack Obama's desire for political solutions:

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
OBAMA: We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq. Ultimately this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.

KEITH: How? Obama says a political solution is needed. Problem is Iraqi politics are a mess. The country's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, is Shiite, and his policies have been hostile to Sunnis. The radical group ISIS capitalized on those sectarian divisions, easing their way into Sunni-dominated cities. President Obama wouldn't say whether he thinks Maliki needs to go, but he is calling for a unity government.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
OBAMA: Shia, Sunni, Kurds, all Iraqis must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq's different communities.

What Barack was asking for is similar to the call made by Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.  Workers Revolutionary Party notes, "World leaders have insisted on a political settlement among Iraq’s Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurdish communities and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, revered among the country’s Shiite majority, has urged political leaders to quickly form a government after parliament convenes on Tuesday." Many made similar calls but more directly noting what "unity" really means -- no third term for Nouri. Prensa Latina reported yesterday:

Meanwhile, the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called today the State of Law coalition, led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to provide a new candidate for that office, since he will oppose his election for a third term in Parrliament.
Al-Sadr, whose followers in the so-called Mehdi Army enlisted to fight the ISIL, defined as decisive the parliamentary session to be held Tuesday to start the process of forming the new government and elect a president and two vice presidents.

While Sunni leaders have made clear that there should be no third term for Nouri al-Maliki, many Shi'ite leaders have also made that call -- Moqtada and Ahmed Chalabi being only two.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted yesterday, "Current Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki has made a lot of enemies over the years, and Ammar al-Hakim, a top figure in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), says Maliki has two big obstacles to a third term: Shi’ites, and everyone else."

But he's a prime minister.  Two terms!  He must be so popular, after all.  No.  Nouri was never selected by Iraqis.  Following the December 2005 parliamentary elections, Iraqi MPs wanted Ibrahim al-Jaafari named prime minister.  In 2010, Iraqis voters made Nouri's State of Law a loser to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya.  So how did the non-popular choice emerge a two-time victor?

Nouri was installed as prime minister by the Bully Boy Bush administration in 2006 and kept by Barack's administration in 2010.  The US puppet has destroyed Iraq, not brought the people together.  Simon Assef (UK Socialist Worker) explained last month:

The Iraqi state that emerged under the occupation was corrupt and deeply divisive. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki deepened the schism by further alienating the country’s Sunni minority and threatening the autonomous Kurdish regions in the north
Disenfranchised Sunnis began peaceful protests in December 2012 in what was known as the “Iraqi Spring”. Security forces attacked the camps, killing dozens of people. Maliki then flooded Sunni areas with his security forces.
Thousands of people were rounded up, tortured and killed.
A deep disaffection with Maliki’s rule precipitated the disintegration of security forces in the face of Isis. Now his government is close to collapse.

The Socialist offers this take, "Since 2006, the western-supported Shia prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, presided over sectarian discrimination, torture and imprisonment without trial. Maliki deployed sectarian rhetoric to take attention away from the atrocious conditions facing all Iraqis. The forcing of a leading Sunni minister into exile triggered popular protests in Sunni areas in December 2012 and early 2013, which the authoritarian regime brutally suppressed. "  How bad is the situation in Iraq?   Yassamine Mather (UK Weekly Worker) observed, "The sharp improvement in the relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic (and subsequently between the United Kingdom and Iran) has been remarkable - Washington is seriously considering military cooperation with Iran over the civil war in Iraq."

All Iraq News reports 73 MPs  failed to attend the session (255 did attend).  Nouri's publicist Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) maintains, "Despite talk of a boycott ahead of the opening, all but members of Ayad Allawi's Sunni bloc showed up."  Wow, who knew Ayad Allawi's bloc won 73 seats.

They didn't.  (2010's Iraqiya splintered.  Ayad Allawi's section formed Al-Wataniya which won 21 seats in the April elections.  Osama al-Nujaifi grabbed another section, Muttahidoon, which won 23 seats. The third section was Al-Arabiya and it won 10 seats and it's Saleh al-Mutlaq's section.  Not only do you not get 73 if you add all three together, but Muttahidoon and Al-Arabiya were present for the session.)

Jane Arraf's in a difficult spot.  She's whored for Nouri forever and day, writing one long lie after another.  Her latest b.s. may set a new low even for her.  Why the Christian Science Monitor employs the woman who was an apologist for Saddam Hussein and now is an apologist for Nouri al-Maliki is beyond comprehension.  Arraf has lied so much and done so over and over, so very often.  She is a one woman propaganda mill, whether 'reporting' for CNN or Al Jazeera or the Christian Science Monitor or NPR or PRI.  Never has one 'reporter' done so much and informed so little.

While Iraqis were killed by Nouri for peacefully protesting, Jane looked the other way except for the occassional Tweet.  When her Tweet about Nouri's forces killing a protester could have provided context for the Hawija massacred, Jane ignored Tweet and never reported on it.  Never noted that the Tuesday massacre kicked off the Friday before when Nouri's forces killed a peaceful protester.

Jane's latest is another sewer of lies and distortions and that's apparently what she's decided she'll stick with.

You'll note the little media whore can't hide how one-sided she is.  For example, in the bad article that the Christian Science Monitor should never have published, she quotes Nouri's State of Law twice in the first five paragraphs as they attack Kurdish politicians.  Where in the entire article is the Kurdish response?

A one-sided whore risks heavy hip injuries, let's all hope Jane's prepared for her tawdry future.




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"UN says at least 2661 violent deaths in June, Parl..."
"Constitution Applies on Foreign Soil Says Federal ..."
"Abu Ghraib Torture Victims May Sue U.S. Corporatio..."
"DAV Calls for Quick Confirmation of New VA Secreta..."
"Legion statement on VA secretary nominee"
"Murray Statement on Nomination of Robert “Bob” McD..."
"Paralyzed Veterans of America Awarded Telly Award ..."
"Despot Nouri"
"Thug Nouri"
"Ivan Eland's Outrageous Statements"
"Mistresses (a little freak never scared Joss)"
"Mistresses (Karen gets a pick up)"
"IRS scandal"
"US involvement in Pinochet crimes"
"Why does the press whore?"
"kurds and the krg"
"Paul Mazursky passes away"
"Facebook: Where creeps spy on you"
"THIS JUST IN! FACEBOOK LOVES SHEEP!"