Friday, February 27, 2015

THIS JUST IN! WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT RICE!

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


A WHITE HOUSE INSIDER -- WHO ASKED THAT WE SAY "NOT JOE BIDEN" -- TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT SUSAN RICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN NUTS.

FURTHERMORE, SHE WAS NEVER HIRED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.


"THE REASON PREZ NEVER NOMINATED HER FOR SECRETARY OF STATE WAS HE NEVER GAVE HER A JOB TO BEGIN WITH," EXPLAINED THE INSIDER.  "HONESTLY, I THINK SHE SNUCK INTO ONE OF THE D.C. 2008 INAUGURAL BALLS AND JUST SET UP SHOP IN THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER.  AND SHE'S SO SCARY WHEN SHE SCOWLS, NO ONE WANTS TO BE THE ONE TO ASK HER TO GO HOME."

IT WAS A RARE INSIDE LOOK AT THE WOMAN SOME HAVE CALLED DEMI-GOD AND OTHERS HAVE CALLED A DEMON.


BUT TO THE INSIDER -- WHO ASKED THAT WE SAY IS NOT JOE BIDEN -- DIRTY RICE IS JUST CRAZY,  "F-ING NUTS! I USED TO STOP IN MID-WILL & GRACE MARATHON AND TELL MYSELF, 'SUSAN RICE IS F-ING NUTS!'  AND THEN I'D HOLLER, 'JILL! HEY, JILL! DON'T YOU THINK -- OH, FINE, YOU'RE ON THE PHONE.  BEAU!  BEAU!  BEAU COME TALK TO YOUR OLD MAN! DON'T YOU THINK SUSAN RICE IS NUTS?'  AND BEAU WOULD AGREE WITH ME."





Seems like just yesterday that a puffed chest former general and current envoy John Allen was boasting to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "In addition we're also discussing the coalition's next steps now that we've largely achieved the objectives of the campaign's first phase  which was to blunt ISIL's strategic operation and tactical momentum in Iraq."

Oh, wait, that was yesterday.

Yet Al Jazeera reports today at least 20 Iraqi troops were killed when the Islamic States "seized a strategic bridge" in Anbar Province which "connects the cities of Baghdadi and Haditha" and Iraqi forces attempted (but failed) to take it back.  In addition, the bridge is near the US-occupied Ayn al-Asad airbase (where the US trains -- among other things) and there was a suicide truck bombing outside the entrance to the base.

So the Islamic State is on the run?

Various US officials keep insisting that but reality rejects it.

That's how it is under Barack, that's how it was under Bully Boy Bush.

They appear to see the Iraq War as a 12-step program and that, if they spin the talk hard enough, reality will eventually bend to their will.

They pulled this in 2003 and it didn't happen.

They pulled this in 2004 and it didn't happen.

They pulled this in 2005 and it didn't happen.

They pulled this in 2006 and it didn't happen.

They pulled this in 2007 and it didn't happen.

. . .

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


The Senate's concerned with what Barack's Authorization for the Use of Military Force (in Iraq, Syria, Disneyland and pretty much the entire world) says.


We covered some of Wednesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in yesterday's snapshot.  Senator Bob Corker is the Chair, Senator Bob Menendez is the Ranking Member. Appearing before the Committee was retired Gen John Allen whom US President Barack Obama has named the Special Presidential Envoy for The Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.


Senator Barbara Boxer: Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to declare war.  I know that you agree with that, yes?

Ambassador John Allen Yes, ma'am.

Senator Barbara Boxer: Alright.  So I hope you could then understand why we would want to be very precise when we do that because we're sent here by a lot of people who have a lot of kids who serve in the military and they're the fabric of our communities so we want to be careful. I just want to say I'm not even going to ask you to expand on this enduring word because you've said it very clearly. Your definition is no enduring presence could mean a 2-week presence of combat boots on the ground -- American combat boots on the ground -- or a two-year presence of American combat boots on the ground.  And that answers a question the Democrats on this Committee have been searching for this-this definition and I think what you are proving with your honesty is there is none because its in the eye of the beholder.  When you say to me if I vote for this, no enduring combat presence and I'm sending my kids there in my state for two years I would argue to you you've misinterpreted it.  Yet the Congressional Research Service says there's really no definition.  And if I wanted to take the administration to  court as I would say, as a member of Congress, "I said no enduring presence," CRS says I wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on 'cause there's no definition.  So I just think it's very important the administration hear this once again.  I know poor Senator -- Secretary [of State John] Kerry had to hear it over and over from our side yesterday.  But we're very uncomfortable with this language.  And when Senator Menendez was Chairman, he cobbled together a really good AUMF that united all of us on our side because he essentially said no combat troops with these exceptions -- and he put in the kind of exceptions that I think you would agree with -- special forces operations, search and rescue, protecting personnel.  And we would urge you, please, to go back and take a look at it. I just feel very strongly.




In yesterday's snapshot, we noted some exchanges on this issue.  We'll note another from the hearing:


Senator Ed Markey: In the Authorization for the Use of Military Force text that the administration provided to this Committee.  It said that it would prohibit "enduring" ground forces. And this was meant to convey that large numbers of [US] troops wouldn't be on the ground for a long time -- whatever that means.  I voted for the 2001 resolution and I'm reminded that the US combat operations in Afghanistan were dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom.  We are now past 13 years in that enduring fight and that resolution, of course, was also the basis for the justification of our actions in Somalia, in Yemen and the administration is saying quite clearly that they oppose the repeal of that and that the operations that are going on right now, in fact, are consistent with that 2001 authorization.  Now causes great problems to me and I think many members of the Committee because even in the absence of the passage of a new AUMF, the administration is maintaining that they have the authority to continue -- as they have for thirteen years -- under Operation Enduring Freedom.  And so that obviously is a problem for us because that sits there as an underlying authority for the next president -- Democrat or Republican who is sworn in on January 20, 2017 and most of us are will be sitting here then as you'll successor will be sitting here then and perhaps not with the same interpretation of the word "enduring." So my questions then go to is this going to open up a potential for an open-ended war in the Middle East?  Will it allow for unfettered deployment of ground troops?  And ultimately, whether or not we are opening up Pandora's Box -- especially in Syria?



The "enduring" aspect has attracted some media attention.

It's not resulted in any real media analysis.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"iraq"

Thursday, February 26, 2015

THIS JUST IN! JAY CARNEY'S A WONDER! WONDER WOMAN!

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

FORMER PLUS SIZE WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY HAS A NEW JOB AT AMAZON.

CARNEY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "EVERYTHING'S STILL NEW AND UP IN THE AIR BUT I THINK I'LL BE WEARING THE TIARA AND MAYBE THE TIGHTS.  I DON'T KNOW THOUGH, IS MY ASS TOO FAT?  I'D LOVE TO WEAR THE WHOLE WONDER WOMAN UNIFORM.BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW?  I WOULD HAVE LOVED LIKE A YEAR LEAD UP TO THIS SO I COULD HAVE WATCHED CARBS AND ALL."






Corker was speaking at the start of this afternoon's Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Corker is the Chair, Senator Bob Menendez is the Ranking Member. Appearing before the Committee was retired Gen John Allen whom US President Barack Obama has named the Special Presidential Envoy for The Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Let's get to the really big news about Barack's war.

It is endless.

It's US troops committed far beyond three years to Iraq.

This was established in Senator Ben Cardin's line of questioning.



Senator Ben Cardin:  Of course the President's request to Congress is pretty specific on ISIL and expires in three years.  It's clear that there may well be a need for a continued military US presence beyond that three years. 

Envoy John Allen: Uh, I would say probably a need for military activity, US military activity, of some form or another, yes sir.


Get it?

First off, this is John McCain.

If you've forgotten, John McCain, while campaigning for the GOP presidential nomination, declared he as fine with US troops in Iraq forever -- or that's how it was portrayed.

He meant US troops in Iraq in the manner in which they remain in South Korea all the years after the Korean War.

Barack Obama was the candidate who was supposed to be 'different.'

And he was going to get all US troops out of Iraq within 16 months of being sworn in as president.

Samantha Power -- as we noted in real time while whores like John Nichols lied -- was forced out of Barack's campaign not because of what she said about Hillary Clinton but because the BBC was about to air an interview with her where she revealed Barack's campaign promise wasn't a promise and that he'd decide what to do after he was sworn in.  This interview was going to be big and Samantha had to 'save' Barack by leaving the campaign so that Barack wasn't forced to answer questions about what she'd said.

Forced?

The little whores of the press ignored it.

And months later, when Tom Hayden was outraged about Barack (the July 4, 2008 holiday), he stumbled upon this and wanted to know why no one made a big deal out of it?  And he answered his own question with Hillary's campaign ignored the issue.

No.

They raised it repeatedly.

In conference calls with the press and in repeated press releases.

It was the press that didn't give a damn.

They were too busy -- remembering the infamous video of Barack wearing jeans and walking past them on the plane -- oohing and awing over Barack to actually cover what he said and what his aids said.

So now, to steal from Jeremiah Wright, the chickens have come home to roost.

The liar who pretended he was always against the Iraq War lied as well about getting US troops out.

The end of 2011 was a drawdown, not a withdrawal.

By fall of 2012, as Tim Arango reported in the New York Times, Barack had sent another special ops brigade into Iraq.

By June 2014, he was sending troops in openly.

And now his envoy tells Congress that the plan is for a continued US military presence -- that Barack pictures it not just for the next three years, but for well beyond that.

How did that chump change work out for The Cult of St. Barack?

Because it didn't improve anything in Iraq and never took all US troops out of the country.

But, hey, we got to see his nipples, right?

He went jogging without shirts and didn't that make up for everything else?

Didn't his man boobs -- moobs -- sliding all around while he jogged make up for everything else?

Let's hope he was a wealth of masturbation fantasies because all he offered was fantasy and, again, to steal from his mentor Jeremiah Wrights, the chickens are coming home to roost.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"



Wednesday, February 25, 2015

THIS JUST IN! HE'S UNITED US IN HATE!

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



AND THEY WONDER WHY THERE IS GRIDLOCK?

WITH THE DEMONIZATION NEVER ENDING THERE IS NO HIGHER GROUND FOR ANY 'SIDE' IN THE UNITED STATES.

THE AGE OF OBAMA: WHERE EVERYONE WALLOWS IN THE MUD OF THE PIG STYE.





Today Amnesty International issued "Amnesty International Report 2014/15: The State of the World's Human Rights."  The section on Iraq opens with:


There was a marked deterioration in human rights as armed conflict intensified between government security forces and fighters of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) armed group, which gained control of large parts of central and northern Iraq. IS fighters committed widespread war crimes, including ethnic cleansing of religious and ethnic minorities through a campaign of mass killings of men and abduction and sexual and other abuse of women and girls. Government forces carried out indiscriminate bombing and shelling in IS-controlled areas, and government-backed Shi’a militias abducted and executed scores of Sunni men in areas under government control. The conflict caused the deaths of some 10,000 civilians between January and October, forcibly displaced almost 2 million people and created a humanitarian crisis. This was exacerbated by the continuing influx of thousands of refugees from Syria, mostly to Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region. The government continued to hold thousands of detainees without charge or trial, many of them in secret detention with no access to the outside world. Torture and other ill-treatment in detention remained rife, and many trials were unfair. Courts passed many death sentences, mostly on terrorism charges; more than 1,000 prisoners were on death row, and executions continued at a high rate. 


That the Islamic State is committing crimes and overseeing horrors is not hard to discover in reports and 'reports' in the western media.


The fact that Iraq's government forces are doing the same?


Much harder to find reported in the western media.

For example, starting in January of 2014, then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki began bombing the civilian areas of Falluja -- a Sunni dominate city.  Bombing civilians areas as collective punishment?  Legally defined as War Crimes.  These bombings quickly became daily bombings.

The western press looked the other way until September 13, 2014 when new prime minister Haider al-Abadi announced these bombings had been stopped.

That the western press rushed to cover.

But, thing is, bombings continued the next day and ever since.  The bombing of the residential neighborhoods in Falluja has never stopped.


These bombings are acknowledged in a sentence in the Amnesty report:


Government forces used indiscriminate shelling to regain control over Fallujah and parts of Ramadi from ISIS, killing civilians and causing damage to civilian infrastructure. Anbar province remained in conflict throughout the year amid allegations that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had undermined efforts by tribal leaders to broker a solution. 
The government’s failure to resolve the crisis, among other factors, left Anbar unable to stem the rapid military advance of ISIS, whose fighters seized control of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, in June and then much of Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Ninevah and Salah al-Din provinces. This sparked a dramatic resurgence in sectarian tensions and massive displacement of communities at risk from armed attacks by ISIS or government air strikes. Ethnic and religious minorities were particularly targeted by ISIS, which forced all non-Sunni and non-Muslims out of the areas under its control. 


The report also notes:

Government forces and Shi’a militias armed and backed by the government committed war crimes and human rights violations, predominantly targeting Sunni communities. In Anbar, Mosul and other areas under IS control, government forces carried out indiscriminate air strikes in civilian areas, including with barrel bombs, that killed and injured civilians. In September, Prime Minister al-Abadi called on the security forces to cease all shelling of civilian areas, but air strikes in IS-controlled areas continued, with ensuing civilian casualties. 
Security forces and Shi’a militias abducted or detained Sunnis and carried out scores of extrajudicial executions with impunity. In areas where they regained control from IS, they also destroyed homes and businesses of Sunni residents, in reprisal for the alleged support for IS by members of those communities. KRG Peshmerga forces also carried out reprisal destruction of homes of Sunni Arab residents in areas they recaptured from IS.



Will any of the above get serious attention from the western press?

Did the findings in the United Nations report issued on Monday get any serious western press attention?


No, they did not.


The reports was issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and is entitled [PDF format warning] "Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq: 11 September - 10 December 2014."


The report notes:


During the reporting period UNAMI/OHCHR continued to receive reports alleging civilian casualties attributed to airstrikes and shelling by Government security forces and those supporting them -- that at times appear to have been carried out against civilian targets or heedless of the disproportionate effects of those operations on civilians, in which case it would amount to war crimes. Hundreds of civilians were reportedly killed (including at least 3 children) from airstrikes and shelling during the reporting period. However, in many cases, UNAMI/OHCHR has not been able to verify these reports nor the number of civilian casualties that may have caused . On 13 September, Prime Minister al - Abadi released a statement that he had ordered the Iraqi Air Force to s uspend bombardment in civilian areas, including those controlled by ISIL, and expressed his commitment to protect civilians. The statement was ostensibly in response to increasing concerns regarding civilian casualties stemming from airstrikes and shelling by Government forces, 


Did CNN rush to cover the report?

No.

Did the Washington Post, McClatchy or the New York Times?


No.

Now it took forever for the report to get back to Falluja.

Because the United Nations is so cowardly -- especially UNAMI.


So you went from the bombing of civilian areas in Falluja to other bombings by forces -- Iraqi as well as the US-led foreign fighters -- before the report would (briefly) get back to Iraq.


ISF, and coalition forces 32 assisting the Government of Iraq, are bound to respect applicable humanitarian law in the conduct of military operations.  These norms include the principles of distinction and proportionality, and the requirement to take all reasonable precautions to avoid and minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects. UNAMI/OHCHR notes one confirmed case (and there have been a few other similar reports cited in local media), where the Iraqi Air Force dropped leaflets from the Ministry of Defense advising civilians to evacuate areas occupied by ISIL that may be potential targets in military operations.
 As noted above, ISIL continues to deliberately position itself in civilian areas and within civilian infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals, either to use the presence of civilians to shield their forces from attack or to cause civilian casualties in the event of attack. 
Salah al-Din governorate reported the highest number of civilian casualties due to airstrikes, with allegedly 67 civilians killed during the reporting period. Subsequent to ISIL complex attack on the sub-district of Dhuluiya on 8 September, ISF began a series of airstrikes in defense of the area. Several aerial bombardments of the area during the remainder of September allegedly resulted in the deaths of at least 11 civilians , and the injury of two others. On 8 October, ISF shelling on Tikrit reportedly killed at least 14 civilians. On 9 and 10 November, shelling allegedly by ISF in al - Alam sub-district, including in a market area, reportedly killed at least seven civilians and wounded 14 more. 
On 14 October, in the Kahrabaa area of Baiji district , an air strike reportedly hit two houses, killing 18 persons, most allegedly civilians. On 17 October, an airstrike in the Albo - Tuama area of Salah al - Din was alleged to have killed five people from one family, including one woman and three children. On 21 October, a building collapsed in the central part of Baiji district after it was targeted in an airstrike. According to one source, a second air strike killed at least five people and wounded at least 10 others who had gone to the site to retrieve those killed and injured by the first strike. 
On 29 November, an airstrike allegedly targeted a vehicle in Yathrib sub-district, killing one civilian, with a second strike targeting a house where a family had allegedly gathered for a funeral. It was reported that at least 15 civilians (including four children) were killed and another 25 were injured in the attack. Local sources have reported that a predominately Sunni Arab area of Yathrib sub-district has been under regular attack by ISF and government-affiliated forces from Balad Air Base (formerly the al-Bakr Air Base) over the past several months. Approximately 15 - 20 villages have been affected, with the most severe impact on al-Jami’y a area, where it is alleged that almost half of the 600 homes were destroyed by shelling. Number of casualties could not be verified due to lack of access to the affected area. Residents have claimed that they are under threat of being shot if they entered their fields for agricultural purposes. It is alleged that the main actor conducting military operations in the area is the Asa’ib Ahl al - Haq (AAH).
Sources in Ninewa also alleged that the governorate had experienced a high number of air attacks during the reporting period. On the morning of 10 September, an air strike allegedly hit al-Majmoua area, north of Mosul, reportedly killing 11 civilians. In the afternoon of the same day, two additional air strikes in al - Shurta and Ba’aj areas allegedly killed at least seven civilians and wounded three more. Air strikes carried out on 17 October north of Mosul allegedly killed at least 26 civilians. It was further reported that on 7 November, two air strikes killed 10 civilians, including two children in Qayyara district. 
UNAMI/OHCHR received several reports of air strikes in Anbar governorate, but due to the security situation was not able to verify these incidents or the casualties that are alleged to have resulted. On 6 October, an air strike allegedly hit civilian buildings in Heet, killing at least 18 civilians (including three women and eight children), with an undetermined number of wounded. Other sources, however, reported that the target of the air strike was ISIL, and that the three civilian houses had been hit with resulting civilian casualties in subsequent shelling of the area. It was also alleged that on 4 November, an air strike hit a market in al-Qaim, western Anbar, killing at least five civilians and wounding at least 27 more. Four days later on 8 November, another strike reportedly killed at least 13 civilians in the same area. 
Sources in Fallujah General Hospital reported that 144 bodies (including 18 children) had been received during September, 398 (including 26 children) during October, and 2 94 bodies (including 8 children) during November. Sources in the hospital alleged that most of these casualties had resulted from shelling carried out by the Iraqi army and associated forces. UNAMI/OHCHR was not able to verify these figures. 


Took them five paragraphs to get back to Falluja but eventually they did.

Again, did the western press rush to cover the UN's report?

No.

Nor will they rush to cover Amnesty International's report.

There's nothing in it for them.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"









Tuesday, February 24, 2015

THIS JUST IN! OLD MCDONALD HAD A BLUNDER! OH NO OH NO OH NO!

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

''I WAS IN THE SPECIAL FORCES!" DECLARED V.A. SECRETARY ROBERT MCDONALD.

THEN, REALIZING HE WAS ON CAMERA, HE EXPLAINED (LATER) HE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF SPECIAL FORCES.

HOW DOES ONE MAKE THAT MISTAKE?

REACHED FOR COMMENT FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY DECLARED, WARNING HE'D BEEN ON A 4-DAY CLEANSE AND MIGHT NOT BE THINKING CLEARLY, THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY NATURAL FOR AN OFFICIAL TO BE CONFUSED ABOUT THEIR ROLE AND WHAT THEY HAD DONE.

"BARRY O WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES," HE EXPLAINED.  "BUT SOMETIMES -- ESPECIALLY IF HE WAS WEARING HIS TIARA OR PLAYING GRAB ASS WITH BODY MAN REGGIE LOVE -- OR BOTH -- HE'D INSIST WE CALL HIM QUEEN OF AMERICA.  AND WE DID."

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Today, Law and Disorder Radio, aired this week's hourly installment on   WBAI -- and airs around the country throughout the week.  The program is hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) and at the opening of the program, the hosts discussed US President Barack Obama's recent AUMF request.



Heidi Boghosian:  Michael, President Obama has gone before Congress to get authorization to use military force against ISIS  but I understood that he was already fighting ISIS.  What is this about?


Michael Ratner:  It does seem bizarre, Heidi.  I mean, in one way it's probably going to expand his authority -- and we'll get into some of the details.  In another, I guess he feels better having Congress on his side against ISIS.  It may also be now that he has Republicans on both sides, that he has an easier time getting authority to go to war.  I think that's actually the biggest factor, the Democrats might give him a little harder time, not much harder, but a little harder.  Let me give a little of the technical details. It's called the Authorization to Use Military Force.  And, of course, under our Constitution, the Congress is supposed to approve the use of military force.  In fact, of course, this president, like every other one, seems to ignore that.  He has -- as people recall, he went to war against Libya without such a use of authority from Congress.  And he's been fighting against ISIS for five, six months already.  Although he's claimed that he's fighting against ISIS because it fits an old authorization to use military force -- the one from 2001 which was originally authorized to go after the people who were involved in the attacks of 9/11.  That's been infinitely expanded so far that not only is the President bombing ISIS but he's using drones in Yemen, he's using them in Somalia, he's all over the world with the 2001.  So you can see it hasn't a bit -- these broad uses of force that the president is authorized to use by Congress.  It reminds us, Heidi, of course, as we've talked about, of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which was passed to give the president [Lyndon B. Johnson] authority to go into Vietnam and fight against the Vietnamese.  But it was so broadly stated that it went on forever and it expanded the war to half-a-million troops.  And in addition in this case, in the case of Gulf of Tonkin, it was based on a false set of facts having to do with an attack by the North Vietnamese, a supposed attack in the waters.  But in any case, these are bad examples because what happens is you give the presidents these kinds of authority and they basically expand them into world war.  And what's amazing to me hear is that you have the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force which has already been expanded.  And they're not planning to end that one.  They're planning to leave that on the books even if they get this new Authorization to Use Military Force in 2015.  So he's going to have both.  And then he says he doesn't even need it. Even if Congress turns him down, he says, 'I still have the old one.'  So the whole thing is just a charade for wide war. 


And that is correct that the White House is asking for an AUMF that they insist they really don't need.  This was established last December when US Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.



Secretary John Kerry:  Let me try to help you a little bit on this.

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  Well help me this way:  Are you going to ever explicitly seek an authorization from Congress?

Secretary John Kerry:  We're seeking authorization now.  With respect to  --

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  So you are.  And if you didn't receive the authoirzation, will you continue the operation?  That's a --

Secretary John Kerry:  The authorization for what we're doing nowin both Iraq and Syria?

Ranking Member Bob Corker:  That's correct.

Secretary John Kerry:  Absolutely we will continue it because we believe we have full authority under the 2001 AUMF and parts of the 2002 AUMF but here's where I want to help you.



That December 9th hearing was covered in the December 9th snapshot, the December 10th snapshot,  Ava covered it at Trina's site with "Ground Hog Day (Ava)," Wally at Rebecca's site with "Barack wants war all over the world (Wally)" and Kat with "John Kerry, damn liar."





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Trashing Gary ..."
"The protest in Diwaniya you won't hear about and m..."
"Hejira"
"The VA Secretary said what?"
"Allegiance"
"Kayla Mueller"
"The Oscars"
"So many fools"
"Joan Rivers was a film director"
"48 Hours 'Til Monday"
"Hard Truths"
"scandal and how to get away with murder"
"Oh dear Lord"



"Idiot of the week: Barack Obama"
"Debbie's downfall"
"50 shades of bad"
"The Mamas and the Papas' Deliver"
"If only we could all agree"
"Neighbors"
"scandal - how 1 show can suck so bad"
"Scott Horton disappoints yet again"
"The displaced"
"The Slap"
"Gutierrez still hasn't gotten his period!"
"THIS JUST IN! LUIS GAVE IT UP FOR BARRY O!"







  • Friday, February 20, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! LUIS GAVE IT UP FOR BARRY O!

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



    OH, THE HORROR!

    LUIS HAS BARRY'S VARSITY JACKET AND HAS BEEN PINNED BY BARRY (IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE!) BUT TOUGH TIMES FOR LOUIS BECAUSE, AS THE SONG GOES, "HE GAVE HER HIS CHILD BUT WOULDN'T GIVE HER HIS NAME."

    AND LUIS IS LATE.

    HE HASN'T GOTTEN A PERIOD!

    COULD HE BE THE NEXT NUT CASE TO FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ROBERT PARRY?

    WILL HIS CONSTITUENTS PUT UP WITH HIM PLAYING GOSSIP GIRL INSTEAD OF USING HIS TIME TO ADDRESS REAL ISSUES?

    LUIS-LUIS, YOU GOTTA GO NOW.




    Alsumaria reports US Marines -- about 3,000 -- are now on the ground in Iraq to participate in the upcoming effort to seize control of Mosul (which the Islamic State has controlled since June).  3,000 is not being reported in the US.

    Zero is being reported in the US.

    In fact, when even the possibility is floated,   MSM outlets tends to avert their gaze and turn their heads.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes, "US officials are now saying that the offensive against the ISIS-held city of Mosul will be supported by the US, with both airstrikes and “if necessary” US ground troops backing the Iraqi military."

    Ditz links to the only MSM outlet noting US troops possibly being involved in an assault to take back Mosul, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski who opens with:


    Iraqi military forces backed by U.S. airstrikes and possibly American ground troops could launch an assault to wrest control of the city of Mosul from ISIS as early as April, a senior U.S. official told NBC News on Thursday.       


    Paul McLeary (Defense News) also cites an unnamed CENTCOM official as his source for these numbers, "Approximately 20,000 to 25,000 Iraqi and Peshmerga troops will move on the city to retake it from an estimated 2,000 IS fighters -- an attacking force that will include five Iraqi Army brigades, three peshmerga brigades, and former Mosul police forces, tribal fighters, and Iraqi Counter Terrorism Service troops."

    If you're thinking this is a source Paul has cultivated and worked . . .

    You're wrong.

    This was not a private conversation.

    It was a background briefing. 

    Here's how that works, the Pentagon is the john insisting on his fantasies being played out and the press are the whores working to make the fantasy come true.


    At least Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) provides some context when repeating the words the Pentagon wants the news to carry:


    That the Pentagon would announce the makeup, time frame, and goal of a military campaign is unusual, particularly against a group considered to be one of the world’s most lethal. Indeed, ISIS stormed Mosul (and took control of it on June 10) in large part because the Iraqi forces stationed there ran away from their posts. ISIS’s swift sweep through Mosul sparked the U.S.-led military campaign.
    [. . .]
    The CENTCOM official said he was announcing the details of the upcoming operation to demonstrate “the level of commitment… to this upcoming operation.”


    Press Association notes that the effort will begin in March . . .

    or . . .


    . . .  April.

    The Pentagon's not sure which.

    Doesn't exactly build confidence, does it?





    "we are not at war with Islam" says Obama. But he is at war in 5 Islamic countries (Afg, Iraq & drones in Yemen,Pak & Somalia)
    74 retweets 56 favorites 


    Good point.  We noted the remark and the perception in yesterday's snapshot and also pointed out:


    Today, he decided to speak on behalf of Muslims.
    And he's not a Muslim.
    How do you think that plays in the Middle East?
    The man who's bombing Iraq, the man whose drones are killing civilians in Yemen and Pakistan and elsewhere, this man declared today -- this non-Muslim -- what is and isn't Islam, what is and isn't the proper practice.
    How do you think that plays out?
    There's a good chance that Barack put his big foot in his big mouth yet again and only did more damage.



    How do you think it plays out, Barack lecturing the Muslim world?

    If you're still pondering that, All Iraq News reports:
    The head of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, Ammar al-Hakim, denounced the "double standards of the US towards fighting terrorism, considering these double standards as "helpful factor for encouraging terrorism."
    In his speech at the weekly cultural Forum he holds in his office in Baghdad, al-Hakim said "We heard reports over killing a Muslim family in the US for racist reasons but we did not hear any denouncement for this crime," noting that "Even the US President took many days to issue a denouncement for this crime which is considered a clear evidence for double standards." 



    That's not Moqtada al-Sadr, cleric and movement leader, speaking.  Moqtada?  The press loves to call him "radical cleric" because he opposes US forces on Iraqi soil and always has and because he's repeatedly called out the US government.


    No, that's Ammar.  Ammar who, like his late father, has always been a friend to the US government. 

    Ammar who many administration officials were saying should be named Iraq's new prime minister (instead it was Haider al-Abadi). 

    Ammar felt the need to call out Barack.

    The xenophobia of the White House is matched only by its hubris.

    Again, there are times when, if you're smart, you learn to shut your mouth.

    I know Bill Clinton, I like Bill Clinton.  So you can dismiss this observation if you need to.  But when Bill Clinton hosted events -- like Barack's summit this week -- he was more than happy to let others shine.  He was more than happy to let others speak. 


    By contrast, Barack's got to be the center of attention, the one who knows everything and can't stop talking.  It's a 'summit' in name only.  The entire purpose for everyone to assemble and listen to Barack drone on.

    The world did not need non-Muslim Barack explaining what was and wasn't Islam.  In a world in which Muslims are repeatedly persecuted, the last thing needed was a non-Muslim standing up and trying to be the voice -- the single voice -- of a group he's not even a part of.  Pompous doesn't begin to describe it.  And it was and it is offensive.



    Mr. Know It All
    Well ya think you know it all
    But ya don't know a thing at all
    Ain't it, ain't it something y'all
    When somebody tells you something 'bout you
    Think that they know you more than you do
    So you take it down another pill to swallow

    -- "Mr. Know It All," written by Brian Seals, Ester Dean, Brett James, Dante Jones, first recorded by  Kelly Clarkson for her album Stronger



    Barack chose to grand stand and lecture yesterday.  Today, Ammar al-Hakim had words for Barack.  You can be sure others in the Middle East felt even more strongly than Ammar.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"