Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

He had other things to do

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O FAILED TO GO TO PARIS FOR THE UNITY MARCH IN RESPONSE TO LAST WEEK'S TERRORIST ATTACK.

BUT WHITE HOUSE INSIDERS TELL THESE REPORTERS BARRY O HAD "VERY IMPORTANT TERRORIST-RELATED ACTIVITIES WHICH PRESENTED HIM FROM ATTENDING."

1) GET A BIKINI WAS -- IMPORTANT TO DO BECAUSE CONTINUED TERRORIST ATTACKS COULD PREVENT HIM FROM GETTING ONE LATER

2) WATCH THE GOLDEN GLOBES -- HE BET BIG IN THE WHITE HOUSE POOL ON COLIN HANKS -- $5 -- TO WIN BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A SERIES, TV MOVIE OR MINI-SERIES.

3) HE HAD TO GET 500 PENNIES IN CASE HE LOST TO SCREW WITH THE WINNERS.

4) HE HAD TO GET A PLASTIC BAGGIE TO PUT THE PENNIES IN.

5) HE WANTED TO WORK ON HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH SHOULD COLIN HANKS WIN (HE DIDN'T) AND INCLUDE AN AGGRESSIVE GESTURE.

6) HE NEEDED THREE HOURS OF TRAINING WITH BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT PATTI WOOD ON HOW TO MAKE AN AGGRESSIVE GESTURE.

7) HE WASN'T SURE HE'D PROGRAMMED TIVO CORRECTLY AND NEEDED THE SECRET SERVICE AND THEN F.C.C. COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE "GIRLS" WOULD BE RECORDED.

8) HE NEEDED SNACKS FOR THE GOLDEN GLOBES AND, AFTER, WATCHING "GIRLS."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Cher weighs in on Iraq:

The damage was done and the damage continues. Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes 139 violent deaths in Iraq yesterday with 21 more injured.

How is Barack's bombing campaign (passed off as a 'plan') reducing violence?

As we ponder that, let's move over to note how it's always interesting what gets attention and what doesn't. Everyone and their dog (that would be the Christian Science Monitor) weighed in on the poll regarding the number of Republicans who believed (wrongly) that WMD (one of the false reasons given for the illegal war on Iraq) were discovered there. We covered the poll in Wednesday's snapshot but we covered it: "32% of Democrats in the US and 51% of Republicans wrongly believe WMDs were discovered in Iraq." Though many outlets used the poll -- which has issues that should question some of the validity of the results -- to do another slam book post on Republicans and Fox News, that 32% of Democrats believe the lie is telling.

A few wanted to insist that the bad New York Times article was responsible.

No.

One report can't do that.

Not even if it's amplified.

The issue is no one was held accountable. When no one's held accountable, the message is no one needs to be held accountable because no one was wrong.

You go into Jack In The Box and order fries, walk out the door, look in the sack and discover they gave you onion rings, you can walk back in and they will take accountability for their mistake and give you the fries you ordered.

One of the reasons given for the 'need' to go to war on Iraq was that Iraq had WMD and was seeking out Betty Crocker Yellow Cake Uranium or some such nonsense.

And these reasons have not led to accountability.

Except maybe for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

Joe is the former US Ambassador to Iraq who exposed Bully Boy Bush's lie about the yellow cake uranium and he was held accountable for that truth telling by the BBB administration which went on to illegally out his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. (Thanks to his father, Poppy Bush, it is illegal for a US government official or employee to out a CIA operative. It is not a crime for others to do so. Which is why columnist Robert Novak committed no crime -- a fact that David Corn -- in his never ending eagerness to suck the phallus of the CIA -- frequently was confused over.)

So Joe and Valerie suffered.

Cindy Sheehan and others across the US suffered as they saw their family members perish in the Iraq War or return home wounded.

The American people -- for many generations -- are suffering -- and will suffer -- as a result of the financial debt the illegal war has created.

But despite all the suffering and consequences being doled out to various people, the ones who lied were never held accountable.

Colin Powell is treated as 'respectable' by the media despite his public lying. He's far from the only one.

And let's not forget that his cuddle buddy, Lawrence Wilkerson, was given free reign by the media (especially MSNBC and Democracy Now!) to rewrite history and present Colin Powell -- human filth since Vietnam -- as a victim and a truthful person.

When no one's held accountable for lying, when there are no prosecutions for deceiving the American people and starting an illegal war, people will assume the lies were true.

But, as usual, that was too much for the media in this country to address.

Heaven forbid we address the glaring lack of accountability.

And heaven forbid we address a real poll -- one whose methodology raises no questions.

See there were two polls that had to do with Iraq that were released this week.

And if you wanted to slam book Republicans and Fox News, you focused on the questionable one (and generally ignored the 32% of Democrats who believed the lie of WMD found).

And if you support war, you'll continue to ignore the other poll.

57% of Americans oppose sending US troops into combat in Iraq. (Yes, they are already in combat. Dropping bombs from planes is combat and, throughout the US Air Force's history, people have long received decorations for those combat missions.)

57% oppose.

That's a majority.

That, however, wasn't big news this week.

A search of even Antiwar.com doesn't even turn up a report or citation.

The poll was conducted by the Brookings Institute -- a centrist organization not known for pacifist sentiment.

It was released on Thursday.

I missed it until a friend at Brookings asked why I wasn't noting it.

Antiwar.com probably missed it for the same reason.

But what about the MSM which usually can't stop presenting Brookings as a "trusted voice."

RECOMMENDED: "CNN's Jake Tapper offers some thoughts"
"Hejira"
"Post Pop -- uncovering the tension among Soviet bl..."
"After the Movie: From Combat Films to Community Mo..."
"Al-Sweady inquiry clears soldiers - but more tortu..."
"Hanan Ashrawi (Francis A. Boyle)"
"Clay Hunt SAV Act Re-Introduced in House (IAVA)"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Senator Murray and Isakson get results"
"Paralyzed Veterans of America's Veterans Benefits ..."
"Happy New Year from the Zed Collective"
"The CIA infects and soils the left (thanks, Robert..."

"Ms. magazine, why I'm not laughing"
"The Originals"
"The Taxer"
"revenge tonight on abc"
"About that Beetlejuice sequel . . ."
"The Iraq Inquiry report"
"Idiot of the week"
"New apartments"
"Removing caked on food from pyrex dishes"
"It should be Black Canary"
"Super Bowl musical acts"
"Where's the Iraq report?"
"Arming who?"

"What about Barack?"

"War Hawk down?"

"Blair"

"Iraqi female nurses"

"But he should"

"unicef in iraq"

"Christians in Iraq"

"Arming who?"

"Only Barry can attack the press"

"THIS JUST IN! HE WANTS TO BE THE ONLY ONE TO ATTACK THE PRESS!"

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Only Barry can attack the press

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS CONDEMNED THIS WEEK'S ATTACK ON A MEDIA OUTLET IN FRANCE.

AFTER MAKING HIS STATEMENT, BARRY WAS HEARD INSISTING, "ONLY I CAN ATTACK MEDIA OUTLETS AND REPORTERS! I'M REALLY GOING AFTER JAMES RISEN NOW!"

A GLEEFUL MEDEA BENJAMIN CLAPPED HER HANDS WILDLY AS SHE PEED HER PANTS RIGHT ON THE SPOT AND SAID, "WE LOVE YOU BARRY! WE DO! WE REALLY REALLY DO!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with a new survey that has a number of outlets in a tizzy. Of Fairleigh Dickinson University's Public Mind Poll's Iraq section, the university notes

Overall, 42 percent of Americans believe that U.S. forces found active weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. Republicans are more likely to hold this belief than Democrats: fifty-one percent of Republicans think it’s “probably” or “definitely” true that an active program was found after the 2003 invasion, with 14 percent saying that it was definitely true. Still, large portions of other groups think that the WMD program, a major part of the justification for the invasion, was actually found, including 32 percent of Democrats.

The findings appear to trouble and confuse RT, The Week, The Hill and more.

I have questions regarding the sample as well as their margin of error (which honestly looks rounded and not really accurate) but assuming the results are correct, why is it a surprise?

February 5, 2003, Colin Powell didn't just go before the United Nations and insist that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, he lied. He knowingly lied. He presented evidence he knew was false.

So since that time, Collie The Blot Powell has been ridiculed by the media and treated with the disdain that a known liar whose lies resulted in the deaths of millions will be treated, right?

Wrong.

Colin Powell is still considered, by the media, to be a respected and trusted person.

He's far from alone. As Peter Hart (FAIR -- link is video) noted in June, "It's 2003 all over again, as Iraq 'experts' who promoted the 2003 invasion are back on TV screens offering expert analysis about what to do next."

Justin Raaimondo (Antiwar.com) addressed the issue in March of 2013 noting:

Ten years after the invasion of Iraq, the war criminals are still at large. Saddam Hussein is dead and buried, but the cabal that lied us into war is still around – and not only that, they are mocking us from their podiums in the media, justifying and obscuring their crimes. Here is former Bush speechwriter David Frum declaring he was right all along – if only:
"If we’d found the WMD, it would have been different. If we’d kept better order in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam, it would have been different. If more Iraqis had welcomed the invasion as we expected, it would have been different. If the case for the war had been argued in a less contrived and predetermined way, it would have been different."
Ah, "but it wasn’t different," continues Frum: "Those of us who were involved – in whatever way – bear the responsibility." So what have been the consequences suffered by Frum – as opposed to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who were killed and maimed, their lives and country destroyed? What price has Mr. "Axis of Evil" paid that is in any way comparable to that exacted from the 5,000 Americans killed and tens of thousands horribly wounded? Why none, of course. There he is, on CNN, in the Daily Beast, pontificating in his new role as a "moderate" Republican.

There is a difference between being wrong and lying.

Anyone who takes a position has a chance of being wrong.

Liars should be banned by the media. Colin Powell lied. That's documented and don't believe his little fluffer Lawrence Wilkerson. Powell was presented with false charges to make to the UN and he pushed back on some but agreed to go with others. This has been documented repeatedly, you can refer to FAIR or to the Los Angeles Times, for the Times start with Greg Miller's July 15, 2004 report entitled "Flaws Cited in Powell's U.N. Speech on Iraq."

He lied.

The mainstream media should have rebuked him long ago instead of courting him and presenting him as an expert.

As for those wrong?

No one should be banned from the public discourse for being wrong. Hopefully, they will at least admit they were wrong but even if they don't we'll all be wrong at some point in our lives -- multiple times (especially me).

But those wrong on big issues? They should be brought on far less by Sunday chat shows and balanced out with voices who were right.

That's for the mainstream media -- the broadcast networks, CNN, most newspapers, etc.

For what's supposed to be the left media?

The periodicals like The Progressive, The Nation, In These Times, Mother Jones, various Pacifica Radio programs, etc?

They might, in the interest of a wide ranging debate, allow those who were wrong to participate but as guests. You do not hire these people, you do not give them a regular platform.

Mother Jones presents itself as left -- in its latest incarnation, it has become nothing but a partisan organ for the Democratic Party -- and as a voice of truth.

But when Mother Jones was looking for someone to hire to write bits and pieces for the mag's online site, it didn't go with Cindy Sheehan. Cindy was a national name and someone who stood for peace and stood against the Iraq War. Mother Jones didn't pursue her.

Or take Ann Wright. The former army colonel was serving in the State Dept when Powell was lying. And her response? She resigned from the diplomatic corps. Her resignation letter ended up all over the internet.

Mother Jones didn't pursue her to write for them.

No, when they had a slot open, they went with Kevin Drum who supported and cheerleaded the illegal war.

When the media -- mainstream or in the case of Mother Jones alleged left wing media -- refuses to hold liars and war mongers accountable, they send the impression that this filth was correct, that those of us who said no to war were wrong.

The filth should have been ostracized, publicly humiliated.

Instead, their opinions continue to be treated as important and worthwhile.

Over a million Iraqis are dead because of these liars and their opinions.

But there are no consequences.

And when even Mother Jones is too damn trashy to draw a line, what is America to believe?

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

He never shuts up

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O AND PROFESSIONAL BUSYBODY BARRY O HAS HAD TO WEIGH IN AGAIN -- THIS TIME ON A CALL IN A FOOTBALL GAME.

WHEN ASKED IF NO ONE HAD EVER TOLD THE BITCH TO MIND HIS OWN BUSINESS, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL JOSH EARNEST DECLARED HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAD.

ASKED IF BARRY O WAS WORKING ON THE ECONOMY, A NERVOUS JOSH EARNEST TRIED TO INTEREST REPORTERS IN BARRY O'S THOUGHTS ON TIDDLYWINKS AND JACKS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with today's Defense Dept press briefing at the Pentagon moderated by spokesperson Rear Adm John Kirby.

Q: Admiral, when you said in response to Nancy's question with numbers, that hundreds of -- we know that hundreds of ISIL fighters have been killed, can you be more specific on that number? And also, can you give us any idea of civilians killed in the airstrike campaign?

KIRBY: I cannot give you a more specific number of -- of how many ISIL fighters. We just know it's hundreds: several hundred. It's not --

I'd like to make two points. First of all, we don't have the ability to -- to count every nose that we shwack [sic]. Number two, that's not the goal. That's not the goal. The less of these guys that are out there, certainly that's the better, but the goal is to degrade and destroy their capabilities.

And we're not getting into an issue of body counts. And that's why I don't have that number handy. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't have asked my staff to give me that number before I came out here. It's simply not a relevant figure.

On civilian casualties, what I know is that CENTCOM, Central Command, is investigating several, what they believe to be credible allegations of possible civilian casualties. I don't know all the details of that. I would point you to Central Command. I know that they are actively investigating what they believe to be at least a few incidents of civilian causalities that they think, you know, warrant further investigation, that they have found credible to investigate. On their own, they've done this. But again, I'd point you to Central Command for more detail on that.

And if I could just editorialize a second, I mean, this is something we always take seriously. We are very mindful of trying to mitigate the risk to civilians every time we operate, everywhere we operate. And so when we do believe that we've had occasion to cause collateral damage or hurt, kill civilians, we take it seriously and we look into it. It matters to us.

Of the above remarks, AFP points out, "The comments marked the first time the US military has acknowledged that the air war may have exacted a toll on civilians." Kate Brannen (Foreign Policy) offers:

Depending on whether any civilian casualties are confirmed -- and where they may have happened -- these new investigations could move the debate around whether U.S. troops need to be moved closer to the battlefield, said Paul Scharre, a former Army Ranger. He worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2008 to 2013 on intellligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance policies, among other issues, before joining the Center for a New American Security.
Some critics of the Obama administration’s strategy against the Islamic State have called for more air power, describing the current airstrikes as “pinpricks.” But to unleash more bombs on Iraq or Syria without inadvertently killing civilians would most likely require U.S. troops to move closer to the fight.

And that's the thing about selling war -- those who do can always use anything to sell even more of it. "You say we're killing civilians? Well the answer is for us to up our involvement! Ground troops will save civilians!"

Sadly, there are many who will go along with that claim -- despite the fact that the years 2003 through 2011 in Iraq, with massive numbers of US troops on the ground -- did not create a safety zone for civilians.

The point Kirby raised about civilian deaths kind of got smoothed over in press reports.

Probably because this press lives to protect itself.

The issue isn't just that there may have been civilian deaths.

There was another important comment -- one that reflects on the press so they prefer to bury it.

Kirby noted, "First of all, we don't have the ability to -- to count every nose that we shwack [sic]."

The US government -- with all its military might, its Special Ops and CIA in Iraq, et al -- can't "count every nose that we whack."

Yet, day after day, the claims by the US government and/or the Iraqi government as to how many 'militants,' 'Da'ash,' 'terrorists,' what have you are treated as fact and repeated as such.

Not only can they not "count every nose," they can't guarantee that the dead were who they claim they were.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"White House failing in Iraq again"
"Trevor Timm nails it"
"Marjorie Cohen steps up"
"Swank"
"revenge first thoughts"
"Covert Affairs gets the axe"
"What are the royals doing to young women"
"How does one become a princess these days?"
"If it's true, it's disgusting"
"Cosby"
"Grimm Fairy Tales"
"They spend pretty"
"THIS JUST IN! WASTING MONEY ON FOOD HE'S JUST GOING TO PUKE BACK UP!"

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

They spend pretty

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O THE MANOREXIC WENT TO DINNER WITH MICHELLE AND SPENT $1000.

SHOCKING AS IT IS WHEN THE ECONOMY IS IN THE TOILET, THE DOW IS SLIDING AND BARRY O REMAINS AN ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANT AND NOT THE QUEEN OF D.C., WHAT'S EVEN MORE SHOCKING IS THAT SO MUCH MONEY WOULD BE SPENT FOR MANOREXIC BARRY TO CHEW HIS FOOD A LITTLE AND THEN PUKE IT UP TO MAINTAIN HIS TRIM AND GIRLISH FIGURE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Take thug Nouri al-Maliki. The man Bully Boy Bush imposed on Iraq, demanded he be prime minister is, was and always will be a thug. Despite that reality, in 2010, when Nouri lost to Ayad Allawi, Barack Obama demanded Nouri get a second term.

That second term pulled Iraq ever closer to the abyss as Nouri attacked protesters, allowed his goons to rape girls and women in Iraqi jails and prisons, bullied politicians, threatened leaders of neighboring countries and much more.

Nouri's finally out as prime minister (Haider al-Abadi currently holds the title) but Nouri has reportedly told his flunkies that he'll be back in the post of prime minister in a matter of months. Currently, he spews his crazy from the post of Vice President -- he's one of three -- the other two are Osama al-Nujaifi and, yes, Ayad Allawi.

Former European Union member Struan Stevenson offers:

Riven with dishonesty and fraud, the Iraqi army mirrors the rampant corruption of the Iraqi government in post-Saddam Iraq.
These circumstances have provided the perfect conditions for the brutal Shiite militias to thrive and take control of the battlefield. There are perhaps hundreds of these militias. They are trained, financed and often led by the terrorist Iranian Quds Force. They are Iranian proxies. So the US air strikes are aiding and abetting Iran in achieving its ultimate objective, which is total control of Iraq.
The current war raging across Iraq was as avoidable as it was predictable. Nouri al-Maliki’s second term as prime minister was a tragedy for the Iraqi people, for the region and for the world. As a puppet of the Iranian mullahs, he encouraged the Iranian-led Shiite militias and used them to enforce his merciless “iron fist” sectarian policy of indiscriminate bombing, shelling, arbitrary arrests, torture and mass execution of innocent Sunni civilians. Maliki utilised the claim of fighting a war against terror to secure his grip on power and the West fell for it.

Nouri's failures and crimes are well known. Despite that reality, Nouri attempted to rewrite history on Sunday. AFP reports:

Iraqi Vice President Nouri al-Maliki, who was widely criticized for sectarian policies during his time as premier, said Sunday that politicians are to blame for the country’s Sunni-Shiite strife.
“There is no problem between the Sunnis and the Shiites as communities, but rather between us the politicians -- we think as Sunnis and Shiites, and we are driving people toward this doom, for which we will bear responsibility before God,” he said.
Maliki himself pursued policies that marginalized and angered members of Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority, especially during his second term as premier.

Richard Engel is a correspondent for NBC News. Today, he Tweeted.

Staying with the topic of US service members in Iraq, Nikki Henderson (Nexstar Broadcasting) reports that US Col Steve Warren has confirmed that US troops stationed at al-Assad airbase are under regular mortar assault from the Islamic State with Warren terming the assaults "completely ineffective." (So far, at any rate.) Barbara Starr (CNN) adds the attacks are "raising continuing concern that U.S. forces in Iraq can be kept safe and at least technically out of a combat role, a separate defense official said. The Pentagon would not say whether security measures had changed at the base."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"James Risen stands tall, US troops under mortar as..."
"Hejira"
"damn you, charlie, i hate you! (state of affairs)"
"State of Affairs"
"Olivia de Havilland"
"Stupid bitch Ray McGovern"
"Chris Hayes is a mess"
"A lawsuit"
"A list"
"Grimm Fairy Tales"
"Brief"
"Calling out the sexism"

"A hack and a fake hop onto a bed and . . ."
"THIS JUST IN! FADED CELEBRITIES MATE!"

Sunday, January 04, 2015

A hack and a fake hop onto a bed and . . .

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

UNTALENTED EDDIE VEDDER -- WHO SUFFERS FROM BOTH NEVER BEING ABLE TO MEASURE UP TO KURT COBAIN AND ALSO FROM PENIS ENVY -- PLAYED SCHOOL GIRL IN HAWAII AS HE SQUEALED WITH JOY AND WET HIS PANTIES WHILE FLIRTING WITH FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O.

SAID EDDIE, "HE MADE MY BOY VAG-JAY ALL MOIST AND TINGLY. THE THOUGHT OF BEING THAT CLOSE TO A WAR CRIMINAL GAVE ME MULTIPLE ORGASMS. THE BIGGEST DILDO AT THE PLEASURE CHEST HAS NEVER BROUGHT ME SO MUCH JOY. STANDING NEXT TO HIM, THE SMELL OF ALL THE CIVILIANS HE'S KILLED IN THE DRONE WAY? OH, IT WAS INTOXICATING. I'M JUST A TIRED WHORE WHO WANTS TO BE FISTED BY BARRY."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Nickolay Mladenov has declared, "The Iraqi ordinary citizen continues to suffer from violence and terrorism. 2014 has seen the highest number of causalities since the violence in 2006 - 2007."

Nickolay Mladenov is United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's special envoy to Iraq. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq counts at least 12,282 deaths and 23,126 people left injured. This doesn't include Anbar which means the numbers are significantly higher since Anbar is the scene of much violence.

Not including Anbar not only reduces the number of dead and wounded, it also allows people to pose and pretend.

'Oh, that awful Islamic State! Killing innocent civilians!'

You mean like the Iraqi government does?

Alsumaria reports 20 civilians were killed in Falluja yesterday -- including 3 children -- and another twenty left injured.

Who killed and wounded those people?

The Iraqi military.

They've been bombing residential neighborhoods in Falluja since January. It's a War Crime.

Nickolay Mladenov has made one statement opposing it -- it's now a year that it's been going on, that the Iraqi government has been killing Iraqi civilians.

And Nickolay thinks one statement takes care of it?

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has never said one word.

Not one word.

Does he really think he represent the best of the world's aspirations by staying silent about a government killing civilians?

1900.

That's not the century.

That's the number of civilian corpses Falluja General Hospital has received since the fall of victims of these attacks.

1900 is the number the western press won't tell you.

1900 is the number of innocents whose lives didn't matter to the Iraqi government and whose deaths clearly do not matter to the world press, to the White House or to the United Nations.

At what point does the world insist that the Iraqi government stop killing Iraqi civilians?

If you're wondering that's why the UN doesn't include Anbar in their death tolls -- they don't want to confront the reality that people are being killed -- so many are being killed -- by the Iraqi government.

It's not because they can't 'verify' the deaths. They can verify deaths in Anbar as easily as they can anywhere else in Iraq -- in fact, they can verify them in Anbar a great deal easier than they can in Nineveh Province (especially Mosul).

They chose not to include Anbar and have done so because they don't want to 'embarrass' the Iraqi government.

Never forget that: The UN which proclaims "it's your world" bends over backwards to avoid documenting the deaths in Anbar because they don't want to 'embarrass' the Iraqi government.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: No Ebola, Sunni clerics assassinated and IBC..."
"Iraq"
"Diana Ross: The RCA Years"
"Pacifica (lousy radio)"
"Uh, what, Bono?"
"Am I this desperate for new content?"
"So i figured I'd stream a Lindsay Wagner TV movie . . ."
"Kenya Barris"
"Donna Douglas"
"I get Oprah's point"
"revenge is back!"
"He needs a library?"
"THIS JUST IN! HE NEEDS A LIBRARY?"

Friday, January 02, 2015

He needs a library?

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS TRYING TO SORT OUT HIS LATEST PROBLEM: WHERE TO LOCATE HIS LIBRARY?

THERE ARE THOUGHT TO BE FOUR PLACES IN THE RUNNING BUT ALL RAISE CERTAIN ISSUES.

CHIEF AMONG THEM: CAN THEY GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF EACH AND EVERYONE OF BARRY O'S COLORING BOOKS?

HIS DISNEY PERIOD, WHERE HE RELIES CHIEFLY ON BLUE, IS THOUGHT TO BE HIS MOST AMBITIOUS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

If you ever questioned the proposition that US politicians are basically crooked and dishonest, let's note two people writing about Iraq today.

Jack A. Smith (Dissident Voice) offers:

The U.S. war against Iraq ended officially December 31, 2011, but it has now metamorphosed into Washington’s air war against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. There are increasing hints U.S. ground troops may be sent in this year. (3,000 American military advisers are already there and 1,500 allied troops are expected soon.)

We can all follow that.

And now here's nutty Dennis Kucinich, former US House Rep:

Establish a US Commission on Truth and Reconciliation. America was led into a war against Iraq, a war which killed over 1 million innocent Iraqis, a war which was based on every manner of deceit. In our name, and with our tax dollars, countless people were either killed, injured or tortured, their homes ruined, the land destroyed. It is time for Americans to know the truth about Iraq and other wars. Let us push Congress and the President to create a US Commission on Truth and Reconciliation.

We must require the highest level of accountability from those who have held the highest positions in our government. Lies which took us into war and established a national security state have separated us from each other, and from the world. Let us reunite in the spirit of truth and justice, seeking the moral high ground and a newer world.

Can Dennis just stop f**king around and lying.

There will not be -- in the next 20 years at least -- a US Commission on Truth and Reconciliation. Why are you wasting people's time deceiving them?

There are things to focus on and your nonsense is not one of them.

You want a Truth Commission? How about you tell the American people about the flight you took with Barack? How about you explain how you got on that plane insisting you were sticking to your guns and not voting for ObamaCare but by the time you touched ground you were breaking your public promise? Why don't you tell the American people about that conversation?

It would be illuminating.

Not just to show the world how self-serving you are, but to explain how politics in the US really work.

Dennis is a disgrace. I've always felt that way.

Now he's writing of Iraq as if the illegal war is over. That's offensive enough.

But he's lying to the American people as well. A decision was made to go war on Iraq. That wasn't -- though Dennis loves to pretend otherwise -- a decision of just Republicans or of just Republicans plus Hillary Clinton.

It's not going to happen.

And this gets to the core of why I despise Dennis.

In 2004, in Boston, as he let down his supporters -- which really is the constant thread in the public career of Dennis Kucinich -- a young woman approached me crying, feeling he betrayed her and the rest and I comforted by leading her (eventually) in a chant of "F**k Dennis Kucinich!"

Dennis is never serious, Dennis is a con artist.

His runs in the Democrat parties presidential primaries -- which, let's be clear, is not running for president, he's never run for president -- are fake.

They're an attempt to corral people into the Democratic Party (and keep them from going to the Green Party or elsewhere). After his fake run, Dennis gives his little fake ass speech, after denouncing the party, urging his supporters to support the Democratic Party. He's a tiny valve intended to release steam and frustration before all of us on the left are supposed to join hands and march behind whomever the party's decided gets the nomination.

In 2008, Barack Obama 'won' Iowa.

After the early round of the caucus, Dennis instructed his followers to take their support to Barack.

At what point does that little bitch plan to take accountability for that?

I believe Barack's actions in Libya were illegal. I called them out here.

Dennis did so on Fox News. But never took accountability for his role in promoting Barack Obama and helping to make him the nominee for the Democratic Party.

Dennis has never, ever run for president.

Don't believe the lies of Amy Goodman.

He's participated -- poorly -- in the Democratic Party's primaries.

Cynthia McKinney ran for president, Ralph Nader ran for president, H. Ross Perot ran for president, Barack ran for president, John McCain ran, etc.

But Dennis never ran for president.

The most he ever ran for was the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

There's a huge difference between that and running for president.

Look at any of his speeches when he repeatedly sought the party's nomination in one cycle after another.

Read the speeches and ask yourself, "If someone really believes that, why don't they run for president?"

Dennis is a fake ass.

He lives to distract. Maybe because he's so nutty. Maybe because that's the role he's assigned himself.

But he's worthless time and again.

If he wants to matter, it's not that hard. Tell the truth about the plane ride. Explain to Americans how you changed your mind on that plane ride.

He doesn't want to talk about the truth.

Talking about the truth might change the system. It would certainly upset the apple cart. So instead, he keeps lying and distracting.

At a certain point, his freak show doesn't even deliver snorts of derision.

At that point, he becomes an embarrassment that the world simply can't afford.

Dennis could have ended the Iraq War at any point. Any member of the US Congress could have. Former US Senator Mike Gravel told those truths and the response was John Edwards and Hillary Clinton caught on mike talking about how to purge certain people from the debates.

RECOMMENDED: "2014 Self-Exposure"
"2014: The Year of Self-Exposure"
"Kat's Korner: 2014 In Music"
"Ruth's Radio Report 2014"
"2014 in Books (Martha & Shirley)"
"2014 in Film (Ann and Stan)"
"Iraq snapshot"
"VA reform, veterans suicide legislation, record-br..."
"The US is training the Shi'ites . . . but to defea..."
"Now she cares?"
"Some Like It Hot"
"Top film of 2014 (box office)?"
"2015 resolution"
"why is barack so sexist and cbs so stupid?"
"Kaley Cuoco offers her opinion"
"Detroit"
"Good for Taylor"
"Well isn't he precious"
"Stalker"
"2014 in Films (Ann and Stan)"
"2014 in film (Ann and Stan)"
"At the bottom of the ratings barrel"
"The Spider-Man movies"
"Grace Slick was right"
"The Simpsons"
"A confusing story"
"C.I. was right"
"Piss on 'our reporters'"
"good for joan collins"
"The most admired"
"THIS JUST IN! WHO PAID OFF THE POLLSTERS!"

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The most admired

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

WAR HAWKS BARRY O AND HILLARY CLINTON ARE THE TWO MOST ADMIRED PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

NO WORD ON WHETHER CHARLES MANSON CAME IN THIRD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Before we get to Iraq, Kia Makarechi (Vanity Fair) explains:

President Barack Obama declared the 13-year war in Afghanistan officially over on Sunday, praising the troops and claiming that Americans are safer for their efforts. In Kabul, General John Campbell folded the flag of the International Security Assistance Force, and unfurled the flag of a new mission, Resolute Support.
But while the administration would like to characterize this as a victory, the end of a conflict, it’s more of a re-branding. More than 10,000 United States troops will remain in Afghanistan, and just over one month ago, the president secretly expanded their 2015 combat mission to include fighting with the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, or other insurgent groups. The expansion of duties, which was first reported in The New York Times, also allows for the use of American manned aircraft and drones. Some 4,000 NATO troops will also remain in Afghanistan next year.

If only there'd been that kind of honesty with regard to the Iraq drawdown -- which didn't end the war and, look around, hasn't ended US military involvement in Iraq.

At today's US State Dept press briefing, moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke, the following exchange took place.

QUESTION: Okay. So first on Iraq, yesterday, General Allen told Der Spiegel that an Iraqi ground offensive will occur when the time is right. What is your current assessment of Iraqi forces, and do you have an update – a timetable for any kind of ground offensive? And a separate one on Russia/Syria.

MR. RATHKE: Well, of course we are engaged with Iraqi forces to help improve their capacity. We’ve already seen Iraq take the initiative in places like Sinjar, where now the siege has been broken, and in a variety of other places where they have taken the fight to ISIL. I’m not going to get ahead of their decisions about further military activity, of course. That’s – that is something that one wouldn’t want to telegraph, and it’s also a question for the Iraqis to decide first and foremost.

Well that's good to know.

Better to know would be reality.

It wasn't the Iraqi military that "we've already seen . . . take the initiative in places like Sinjar." Sinjar was the Peshmerga. They are not part of the Iraqi army. They are the Kurdish elite force trained and based in the Kurdistan Region (northern Iraq) and answerable to the Kurdish government.

That's reality.

The US government knows it -- Rathke damn well should -- because there have been stand offs regarding disputed areas in Iraq -- stands offs between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi army.

Do you think just because the US government pretends otherwise -- and because some stupid people in the US nod along -- either side in Iraq has forgotten it?

They haven't.

The Peshmerga has always had their act together.

When Shi'ite militias became a recognizable problem in Baghdad, the Kurds offered to send the Peshmerga in. Baghdad didn't want that, the Shi'ite government in charge of Iraq did not want that.

But from the beginning of the Iraq War, the only functioning military in Iraq has been the Peshmerga.

I don't understand how pretending that reality hasn't taken place helps anyone.

Now the Iraqi military has had some limited successes -- both with the help of the Peshmerga and all by themselves. But what happens after?

Isabel Coles (Reuters) reports:

Like dozens of other communities in Iraq, this small Sunni settlement in northern Salahuddin province’s Tuz Khurmatu district has been reduced to rubble. In October, Shia militiamen and Kurdish peshmerga captured the village from the Sunni militant group ISIS. The victors then laid it to waste, looting anything of value and setting fire to much of the rest. Residents have still not been allowed to return.
“Our people are burning them,” said one of the Shia militiamen when asked about the smoke drifting up from still smouldering houses. Asked why, he shrugged as if the answer was self-evident.

Well, it's something.

It's nothing you can build on.

It's something only fool would bill as a "success."

But it's something -- something very disturbing and troubling..

And that destruction taking place on a smaller scale it mirrored by the nonstop bombings of Iraq, from the air, that the US is leading.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraqi leaders move further away from the US govern..."
"Hejira"
"ali macgraw, star power, and why 'the great gatsby..."
"Robert Parry's a whore"
"Nobody likes Seth Meyers"
"The state of radio"
"Paddington"
"Time for PBS to find a new ombudsperson"
"Julia Louis-Dreyfus is so not funny"
"Worst actress of 2014"
"Grand Pa Matt Lauer needs to keep his pants on"
"Best film of the '00s"
"health and beauty?"

"THIS JUST IN! MAYBE YOU DON'T GOTTA HAVE THESE FRIENDS?"

"Look who's standing up for him now"

"Dirty Debbie"

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Look who's standing up for him now

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O STILL HAS A FEW FRIENDS LEFT.

LIKE STEROID USER AND CONVICTED LIAR BARRY BONDS.

BARRY BONDS TOOK TIME OUT FROM, PRESUMABLY, FILING A NEW APPEAL TO HIS LATEST FAILED APPEAL TO OVERTURN HIS CONVICTION, IN ORDER TO SEND BARRY O A CHRISTMAS GREETING.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE . . . BARRY O'S LOOKING LIKE A REAL LOSER.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The Washington Post's David Ignatius looks back on 2014 in terms of Iraq in a column which notes, "The problem, the tribal leader argued, was that because the United States was working so closely with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, Sunnis in Anbar doubted there was any U.S. commitment to giving them more power. Without this political commitment, weapons and even Apache gunships would be of little use."

He's referring to Sahwa.

Also known as "Awakening," "Sons of Iraq" (and it's female counterpart "Daughters of Iraq").

Sahwa's a complex issue that many want to turn simplistic. I'm not referring to David Ignatius, I'm referring to cheerleaders on various sides.

Sahwa was a US government plan to get Sunnis fighters -- resistance -- to big-tent it in Iraq.

By 2007, the Awakening movement was finally getting traction.

However, for over a year prior the US government repeatedly claimed success there when there was no success and many in the press ran with articles about this great new movement that did not exist.

On great. Some tribal leaders were like any other people on the face of the earth -- the mixture of positive attributes and faults. But equally true, some leaders of Sahwa -- at least two noted ones -- were mafia. Iraqi mafia. One, in fact, making big money in the cement industry.

That's part of it too and you can't talk about the history and be dishonest.

That's the leadership.

David Petraeus was a US general who was the top commander in Iraq. By 2008, a number of things were going on in Iraq resulting in a reduction of violence.

Sahwa was one component. Another was the 'surge.'

The 'surge' is something I have a real problem with. As late as 2010, I could hear someone on my side (the left) talk about the surge and dismiss it completely and think we could disagree and that was that. But the reality is, as the years have shown since, this is not an area where people are honest or thoughtful. This is a knee-jerk area with a lot of uninformed stupid people. If that seems simplistic, so does, in 2014, saying "The surge didn't work!"

I opposed the surge, check the archives. I called it out when it was proposed. I called it out when it was started. I said it would be a failure.

I was half-wrong and I was half-right.

The surge was two parts.

(1) Bully Boy Bush was greatly increasing the number of US troops in Iraq and (2) this was being done so that a 'diplomatic surge' would take place -- violence would be reduced and the US troops would be leading on that to allow the Iraqi politicians to focus on the always spoken of but never achieved "political solutions."

The US military did what they were tasked with.

They succeeded.

I don't know why some on my side have a problem admitting that.

Check the archives, I said it wouldn't happen. I was wrong. I have no problem admitting that.

But part one, the success, was supposed to create the space for part two and that never happened.

This is a really important point because it's not just history from a few years back, it applies to today when Barack Obama is doing the same thing that Bully Boy Bush did, focusing on the military aspect and just assuming the political will fall into place all by itself.

At any rate, the reduction in violence came about for three reasons. The surge and Sahwa were two of those reasons. The third reason was ethnic cleansing.

Many still want to call it a civil war.

It wasn't and we didn't play like it was in real time.

Baghdad was 'cleansed' and went from an integrated city to one that is predominately Shi'ite.

The bulk of the external refugees of this period were Sunnis. The bulk of the dead were Sunnis.

You can play it off as 'civil war' for however many decades before you're comfortable admitting the US government's role in it.

But that's why violence began to decrease: Sahwa, the surge (the military aspect, the only success) and ethnic cleansing.

The reduction in violence was such a success that it distracted from the political failures which included Nouri al-Maliki -- then prime minister of Iraq and forever thug -- being unable to meet the White House defined benchmarks for success (which Nouri agreed to and signed off on).

To sell the continuation of the illegal war, April 2008 offered a week of The Petraeus and Crocker Show, where the then top-US commander in Iraq Petraeus and then-US Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified to Congress repeatedly. By focusing on violence, they tricked the bulk of Congress (or maybe the bulk of Congress was in on the con? -- certainly some were) into talking about that and ignoring the lack of progress on the political front. (US House Rep Lloyd Doggett was the only one who, that entire week, used his questioning time to bring up the issue of the failed political benchmarks). We were at all the hearings that week and we'll drop back to April 8, 2008 for that day's snapshot:

Today The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour took their act on the road. First stop, the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to be providing a status report on the Iraq War. They didn't. In fact, Petraeus made clear that the status report would come . . . next September. When the results are this bad, you stall -- which is exactly what Petraeus did.

The most dramatic moment came as committee chair Carl Levin was questioning Petraeus and a man in the gallery began exclaiming "Bring them home!" repeatedly. (He did so at least 16 times before he was escored out). The most hilarious moment was hearing Petraeus explain that it's tough in the school yard and America needs to fork over their lunch money in Iraq to avoid getting beat up. In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads. These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts." Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up.

How much lunch money is the US forking over? Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars). By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month. $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost". Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies. What a [proud] moment for the country.

Crocker's entire testimony can be boiled down to a statement he made in his opening statements, "What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible." Which would translate in the real world as nothing has really changed. During questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Crocker would rush to shore up the "Awakening" Council members as well. He would say there were about 90,000 of them and, pay attention, the transitioning of them is delayed due to "illliteracy and physical disabilities."

Sahwa was paid to stop attacking US equipment and US troops -- that was the order Petraeus repeatedly gave that week and where he placed the emphasis.

Could the movement exist without buy-offs?

If the payments stopped would the movement stop?

In 2008, I believed it wouldn't.

I was hugely wrong.

During that week, Senator Barbara Boxer noted the millions being spent on this program and wondered why the US government was footing the bill and not the oil-rich government of Iraq?

This took both Petraeus and Crocker by surprise and, realizing they a potential nightmare on their hands, they basically rewrote policy while testifying by insisting they could and would raise that with the Iraqi government.

Which was Nouri.

Nouri loved Iraqi money. Loved it so much, he took it home and played with it. Also known as embezzlement and theft.

But while he'd grab it for himself (and for his crooked son), he wasn't keen on using it to better Iraq. Which is why there was no improvement to Iraq's crumbling public infrastructure under Nouri -- despite his serving 8 years as prime minister.

He also didn't want to pay Sahwa.

But, more than money, his problem was that they were Sunnis.

When the US insisted on coward Nouri in 2006 -- insisted he become prime minister because the CIA analysis on Nouri argued his paranoia would make him an easily controlled puppet -- they pretty much doomed the country. (Barack sealed the doom by insisting, in 2010, that Nouri get a second term as prime minister even after he lost the election to Ayad Allawi.)

Nouri was back in Iraq not out of love for the country. Love didn't cause the coward to flee either. He hated Sunnis and he wanted revenge.

And though he was being told by the US government that he'd have to pay Sahwa and that he'd have to incorporate them into the Iraqi forces and into the Iraqi government, he had no intention of doing so.

And, in the end, he didn't.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Barack and Michelle Obama's White House Holiday gr..."
"John McCain is in Iraq, the Post is on vacation (a..."
"The State Dept has an Iraqi Christian problem -- a..."
""Obama Upgrading The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal 'For A D..."
"O Little Town of Bethlehem (Francis A. Boyle)"
"Dirty Debbie"
"Rocky Anderson's an idiot"
"state of affairs (charlie didn't kill aaron)"
"A whole lot of fools including Ralph Nader"
"The president loses patience with Charlie (State of Affairs)"
"Diana Ross' Swept Away"
"What's up with Jodie Foster?"
"Spike Lee might need to provide some answers"
"New Year's snack"
"Horse faced Sarah Jessica Parker"
"Done with Google Chrome"
"He finally got his crown"
"THIS JUST IN! NEW MEANING TO TODDLERS AND TIARAS!"

Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

He had other things to do

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Only Barry can attack the press

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

He never shuts up

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

They spend pretty

Sunday, January 04, 2015

A hack and a fake hop onto a bed and . . .

Friday, January 02, 2015

He needs a library?

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The most admired

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Look who's standing up for him now

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix