Tuesday, May 03, 2016

THIS JUST IN! SHE'S A TRAIL BLAZER!

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


INSTEAD OF RUNNING FROM THE INEVITABLE RICHARD NIXON COMPARISON, CRANKY IS EMBRACING IT.

"YOU DON'T BECOME TRICKY DICK OVERNIGHT," CRANKY EXPLAINED.  "YOU HAVE TO BUILD TO IT.  I LONG FOR THE DAY WHEN SOMEONE CALLS ME 'CRANKY DICK.'  THAT'S WHEN I KNOW I'LL HAVE TRULY BROKEN THE GLASS CEILING FOR WOMEN. AND, YES, GALS, YOU ARE WELCOME."







Here we are just about two years later, and US soldiers wearing boots are on the ground in Iraq and Syria. The Green Zone in Baghdad has been stormed. The latest US deployments are small, but floods always start with a drip. About 217 US soldiers have been sent to Iraq to augment the more than 4,000 troops already there, along with an additional 250 sent to the urban death zone that is Syria. They're going to a place where hospitals are deliberately destroyed; a medical facility in Aleppo was recently obliterated in an airstrike, killing 14 people. The US blamed the Syrian government, the Syrians and Russians blamed the US, and the dead lie still.
"We see a continual escalation with the now 250 additional troops," said Rep. Barbara Lee. "Whenever you have troops in harm's way, unintended consequences could occur. I'm very worried that our troops, while advisers, are still in the middle of the war and without authorization from Congress." Sen. John McCain, in a rare moment of sense, said, "We used to call it 'mission creep.' I've seen this movie before. It's called Vietnam."


US troops and millions of US tax dollars continue to flood into Iraq.

It's past time that American citizens start asking why and start asking what the policy is, what the plan is.





When it comes to Iraq, the world’s attention has largely focused on the military campaign to uproot the Islamic State from its strongholds in Anbar province and Mosul. But the most consequential fight for the country’s future may be playing out in Baghdad’s Green Zone, not with bullets and bombs, but amid an unanswered cry for political reform to a deeply dysfunctional and sectarian state.
The Obama administration’s plan to defeat the Islamic State relies in part on maintaining a reliable political partner in the form of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, who has so far struggled against vested interests to push through his plans to overhaul the government and fix what is widely decried as a sectarian free-for-all among Iraqi politicians.


And the three are right.


And that 'plan' is and has been wrong from day one.

That 'plan' is why Iraq is in its current state.

It's why Barack Obama has failed Iraq.


In 2010, Iraq held national elections.  Nouri al-Maliki was the prime minister, having been installed by the Bully Boy Bush administration in 2006 (due to their objection to the Parliament's choice of Ibrahim al-Jaafari).  In the 2010 elections, Nouri used every thing he could to try and win and yet he lost.

And yet he got a second term.

How did that happen?

Because Barack decided to give Nouri a second term.

First Nouri refused to step down.

All the whining about Iraq right now -- we'll get to it in a moment -- is just utter nonsense.

For over eight months, in 2010, nothing happened.

Nouri refused to step down after losing the elections and he brought the country to a standstill.

For eight months.

That was a crisis.

Those insisting today's a crisis have really short memories and a lack of context.

Barack had advice.

Samantha Power and Susan Rice loudly advocated for the democratic process in Iraq to be trashed and for Nouri to get a second term because, they both insisted, he would give the United States what they wanted.

What the US government has always wanted has been the hydrocarbon law passed.

The oil and gas law has always been first on the list.

It remains first on the list.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



  • "THIS JUST IN! EVEN BILL AGREES!"




    Sunday, May 01, 2016

    THIS JUST IN! EVEN BILL AGREES!

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


    LENNY PITTS JR. IS SHOCKED BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN HIS PIT ODOR FOR A CHANGE.  


    BUT BILL CLINTON TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE.

    "I HAVE TROUBLE GETTING BEHIND HER," HE EXPLAINED, "OR IN FRONT OR ON TOP OR UNDERNEATH.  WHY DO YOU THINK I TOOK UP WITH MONICA TO BEGIN WITH?"






    Well color me surprised.




    1. Protesters Storm Baghdad Parliament, State of Emergency Declared



  • :فيديو: هو هو نوري المالكي والله انجلطك قيس الخزعلي اكبر قنذر هوهو حنان الوسخة نوري المالكي اليوم انجلطك



  • :فيديو :غراب مجلس النواب عباس البياتي داخل السياره والمتضاهريين يحاصروووه








    Moqtada al-Sadr's protesters live chiefly in Basra (they didn't come into Baghdad today) and in the Sadr section (usually called "slum") of Baghdad.  That last group has been protesting in Baghdad, outside the Green Zone, on his orders.

    They made it into the Green Zone.


    Protests Update: Everything You Need To Know About The Civil Unrest In Baghdad’s Green Zone








    Everything you need to know?


    Not really.


    Tear gas was fired.

    After.

    After the protesters were inside the Green Zone and had stormed the Parliament.


    After they had stormed the Green Zone and made it into the Parliament.

    After.

    There's a point here, if anyone's paying attention.


    In all the years of the Green Zone, it was only almost stormed once and that was shortly after Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister in 2006.

    People were shot.

    People were shot dead.

    Immediately after, the 'Bremer walls' went up.


    Moqtada al-Sadr's protesters made it into the Green Zone today.


    Not because they're particularly smart.

    Certainly not because they have super powers.

    Clearly because either orders weren't followed regarding what to do when people attempt to breach the Green Zone or because there was a stand down order allowing them to seize the Green Zone.



    Which was it?

    It honestly doesn't matter at this point -- not for Haider al-Abadi.


    Nouri al-Maliki was prime minister from 2006 through 2014 and the Green Zone was never breached.

    Haider al-Abadi hasn't even been prime minister for two years and it's already been breached.


    Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"


  • Thursday, April 28, 2016

    THIS JUST IN! WHY WAIT ON WINNING A NOMINATION?

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

    TODAY, TED CRUZ CONTINUES TRAILING IN THE RACE FOR THE G.O.P.'S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.

    THAT DIDN'T STOP HIM FROM PICKING A RUNNING MATE: CARLY FIORINA.

    IN UPCOMING MOVES, TED INTENDS TO SHOW UP AT THE WHITE HOUSE FRIDAY FOR AN UNANNOUNCED EARLY BREAKFAST, FOLLOWING WHICH HE WILL MEASURE THE OVAL OFFICE FOR DRAPES AND THEN GO SKINNY DIPPING IN THE WHITE HOUSE POOL.  

    REPORTERS ARE INVITED AND TED NOTES THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO JOIN HIM IN SKINNY DIPPING BUT THEY DO HAVE TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS.






    As if Iraq doesn't have enough drama all by itself, THE WASHINGTON POST attempts to create some.  Loveday Morris and Mustafa Salim insist, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi desperately tried to steer his country out of political turmoil on Tuesday, partially reshuffling his cabinet amid stepped-up pressure as thousands of protesters threatened to storm parliament."


    We'll get to the 'protesters,' first "Haider al-Abadi desperately tried to steer his country out of political turmoil"?


    The 'turmoil' is created by Haider.

    The US-installed prime minister is not following the Iraqi Constitution.

    Why is that so damn hard for reporters at THE WASHINGTON POST to be honest about?

    Oh, that's right, for US press outlets, the State Dept line becomes 'fact.'

    At least it does for the immediate time.

    But let there be no mistake five years from now, when Americans all know the truth, that the truth was known then but these reporters and press outlets didn't convey it and let them be forced to explain why that was.

    Haider has created any 'turmoil' by insisting that he needs a new Cabinet.

    He's done at the bidding of the US government.

    Let's move over to 'protesters.'

    Threaten to storm the Parliament, did they?

    The Parliament's in the Green Zone.

    That would be the heavily fortified Green Zone.

    Where Iraq's politicians hide out from the people.

    It was almost breached shortly after Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister in 2006.  That was very scary for those hiding out in the Green Zone (which included US officials).

    This caused anxiety and a flurry of measures being added to further fortify the Green Zone.

    To storm the Parliament, these 'protesters' would first have to storm the Green Zone -- something no group has managed to do in over a decade of the Green Zone's existence.

    Let's say that they managed to breach the Green Zone.

    And then let's forget for a moment that the orders in place would be warning shots and then firing at those civilians trying to get into the Green Zone.

    Let's just say that they managed to breach the Green Zone.

    They then just waltz into the Parliament?

    No.

    The Parliament has its own set of security.

    The notion that anyone was going to breach the Green Zone today and make it into the Parliament was never a genuine possibility.


    Anyone saying otherwise is lying.

    Again, Iraq has enough drama, there's no need to lie in order to create more.

    The 'protesters' were followers of Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr who have repeatedly responded to his call to turn out to show support for Haider al-Abadi's proposals.

    Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
    "NINA"






    Sunday, April 24, 2016

    THIS JUST IN! SHE WINS HER WAY!

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


    ASKED FOR HER THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER, CRANKY REPLIED, "EVERY VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE THAT COUNTS, A WISE VOTE, A NEEDED VOTE, AN IMPORTANT VOTE.  I WILL GLADLY ACCEPT ALL THE VOTES I WIN AND ALL THE VOTES I STEAL."



    The United States still has 4,000 troops in Iraq, nearly five years after President George W. Bush agreed with the then-Iraqi government that all U.S. troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. President Obama pledged to end the war in Iraq as part of his 2008 election campaign, a promise he has not fulfilled, bending to pressure from the Pentagon and Washington’s other advocates of a continued U.S. military presence.
    In principle, U.S. troops are in Iraq in the context of advising and supplying Iraqi armed forces, not in a combat role. However, it emerged last month that Marines maintain an independent fire base in northern Iraq and are expected to play a critical role in carrying out the plan of Iraqi forces to free Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria control. ISIS has held Mosul since June, 2014.

    The Iraq War never ends.

    Nor do Hillary Clinton's excuses for voting it and supporting it through 2007.

    By contrast, Senator Bernie Sanders voted against it.

    At a Baltimore rally today, Harper Neidig (THE HILL) reports, Senator Bernie Sanders declared, "The most important foreign policy debate in the modern history of this country took place in 2002 over the war in Iraq. I listened very carefully to what President Bush and Dick Cheney and the others had to say. I did not believe them, I helped lead the opposition.  Secretary Clinton heard the same evidence that I did; she voted for that war.  As secretary of State, she initiated and helped lead the effort to help overthrow the government of Libya, which brought mass instability to that region."


    Thursday, War Hawk Hillary Diane appeared on ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA to sputter:


    Well, I guess my-my greatest regret, uhm, was, uh, voting to give President Bush authority in Iraq.  Uhm, it did not turn out the way I thought it would based on what he had said, uh, and I regret that.  I've said it was a mistake and, uh, obviously, uh, it's something I-I wish hadn't turned out the way it did.


    Even she couldn't get it out in a believable manner.


    Stumbling and sputtering, she tried to rewrite history yet again.


    In the face of Hillary's latest revision, it's worth again noting Stephen Zunes providing reality about Hillary's Iraq history:

    1. “Hillary Clinton’s vote wasn’t for war, but simply to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.”
    At the time of vote, Saddam Hussein had already agreed in principle to a return of the weapons inspectors. His government was negotiating with the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission on the details, which were formally institutionalized a few weeks later.  (Indeed, it would have been resolved earlier had the United States not repeatedly postponed a UN Security Council resolution in the hopes of inserting language that would have allowed Washington to unilaterally interpret the level of compliance.)
    Furthermore, if then-Senator Clinton’s desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn’t have voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Clinton voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
    In fact, unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion. Despite the UN weapons inspectors having not found any evidence of WMDs or active WMD programs after months of searching, Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country. “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war,” Clinton said in a statement, “and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

    When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.” She insisted that Iraq was somehow still “in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions” and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to “neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”



    Julia Sharpe-Levine (HUFFINGTON POST) adds:

     Her assertion that her vote for the Iraq War was “the best decision I [could’ve made] with the information I had” is deceitful considering that prior to voting, she neglected to read the 92-page classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction circulated to the Senate for review by the Bush administration. The NIE went into great detail about the objections raised by the State Department and Department of Energy to claims of nuclear-weapons in Iraq, and led multiple senators, including Bob Graham of Florida, to vote against the war resolution.


    Bully Boy Bush tricked her, she whined this week.

    But how stupid do you have to be to be in order to be tricked by Bully Boy Bush?

    More to the point, how can you be 'tricked' when you don't even do the basic work required?

    Hillary voted without doing the National Intelligence Estimate?

    Well, no one's ever accused her of possessing an overabundance of intelligence.


    Retired Lt Col William Astore (HUFFINGTON POST) observes:
    No more nonsense about being a touchy-feely progressive like Bernie Sanders.  It’s time for Hillary the Hawk to take charge and soar, preempting any criticism by Republicans that she’ll be “weak” on defense.
    But, tell me again, how did America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere go for the United States?  At least three trillion dollars lost, tens of thousands of U.S. troops killed and wounded, hundreds of thousands of “foreigners” killed and wounded, millions made refugees, and for what, exactly?
    Hillary the Hawk wants to double-down on a losing hand.  That’s neither “aggressive” nor “tough”: It’s reckless and dumb.  Worst of all, she’s playing with our chips as well as the lives of our troops, not to mention the lives of all those “foreigners” seeking shelter from American bombs and bullets and drones.  (But we have a word for them: collateral damage.)



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




    Wednesday, April 20, 2016

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON LIKES BOYS!

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


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED, "MY BOYS ARE GROWING BOYS.  I LIKE BIG BOYS.  I LIKE FOUL MOUTHED BIG BOYS.  I LIKE 'EM YOUNG.  IT'S FUNNY HOW NO ONE'S NOTED HOW LITTLE ROOM FOR WOMEN THERE REALLY IS MY CAMPAIGN -- IN MY 'I'M ALL ABOUT THE WOMEN' CAMPAIGN. I LIKE THE DIRTY MOUTHED, YOUNG, BIG BOYS.  BRING IT ON!!!!"






    The War Hawk has landed?

    Hillary Clinton has won the state of New York's Democratic Party primary.  That's not a shock, forget the allegations of vote suppression (though I'm sure they're true), the closed primary status means that  only Democrats could vote.  That can be good.  It can also be bad in that it doesn't reflect what will happen in a general election.


    But one thing we know?


    Debra Messing is not just an outright idiot, she's a nightmare.

    In 2008,  I supported Hillary.  It was around the New Hampshire primary.

    I know Hillary -- or knew her.

    I was looking at her record and Barack's.

    She said her support for the Iraq War was a mistake.

    Was she telling the truth?

    Barack?

    Elaine and I were face to face with him in Chicago when he was seeking the Senate, at a big money fundraiser, and didn't ask about Iraq, Elaine praised him for speaking out against the Iraq War -- which friends had told us of.

    And his response was that America was in Iraq now so it didn't matter.

    That's when Elaine and I exchanged a look and immediately left the fundraiser without either of us writing a check.

    Their Senate records were more or less the same.

    Hillary was (finally) saying that the support of the Iraq War (or at least her vote for it) was a mistake while Barack had said to my face that opposition to the Iraq War was no longer important.

    We'll come back to Iraq but between the two of them, I was willing to bet that Hillary was the better choice because of that face to face encounter with Barack and because she was being savaged which argued that, if she were the President, 'leaders' of the peace movement would publicly rally and make demands.

    They wouldn't do that with Barack.

    We saw it with our own eyes.

    They lied and insisted they couldn't object or pressure now because it was a primary but that during the general, they'd be all up in his face.

    Then the general election was too important to make demands (????) so they'd do so after he won.

    In his two terms, has Tom Hayden ever led a protest against Barack?

    Not "no," but "hell no."

    They were frauds.

    And we regularly cautioned here about what would happen as they ripped Hillary apart with one sexist attack after another:  They risked creating a division so hard that in a general election they might not win over her supporters.


    And that did happen.

    It was a given that whomever the Democratic Party candidate was, they'd win in 2008 due to outrage over the illegal war and 8 years of Bully Boy Bush.

    Even with that, John McCain (and his running mate Sarah Palin) ended up with 45.7% of the vote.

    Barack was a fresh face.

    You can sell hope on that, you can sell novelty with that.

    Hillary's been around forever.

    That doesn't create excitement.

    And that's before we factor in gender in the United States.


    Barack was also able to peel off Republicans from their own party and to attract independents.

    Hillary's unfavorables are immense and decades old.

    So if Hillary's the nominee come November, she's going to need every vote available and she's going to need supporters who can carry her over the finish line because she can't do that.

    She can say she's not a natural politician but she is one, she's not a likeable one.

    This is not a new development.  It was true and commented on in the 2008 race (and Hillary even responded to it in the debates).

    So the Debra Messings of the world need to learn grace.

    I know that's hard for a woman who's damaged her face with bad plastic surgery -- clue, boys and girls, when women over forty go ridiculous painting on eye brows, they're usually hoping it will hide a bad face lift.

    But they need to learn it.


    RECOMMENDED:"Iraq snapshot"