Thursday, May 21, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THE SURVIVING E-MAILS!

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


LIKE JOAN CRAWFORD IN A ROSE GARDEN, CRANKY CLINTON TOOK AN AXE TO HER E-MAILS.


INCLUDING WHERE SHE'S DISCUSSING BENGHAZI WITH SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL.  

CRANKY'S UNNATURAL ATTRACTION TO BLUMENTHAL MAY BURY HER YET.  

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED, "I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT MAN.  MAINLY BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO."








In yesterday's snapshot, we noted how, excepting former US Senator Mike Gravel, no US politician with a national presence tells the truth about Iraq.

They all tend to repeat the comforting lies about how the US 'helped' Iraq and how a 'gift' was given (at gun point) and it's always noble and wonderful -- on the side of the 'giver.'  Very little attention is ever given to those that the 'gift' was imposed upon.

Damon Linker, non-politician, attempts to grapple, all these years later, with whether or not Bully Boy Bush and others lied about believing former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was sitting on Weapons of Mass Destruction.  At The Week, Linker notes this belief (or stated 'belief') was held by many Democrats in the five or so years leading up to the Iraq War:

I read or listened in real time to most of the statements quoted in this useful Larry Elder column from 2006. Bill Clinton in 1998 and 2003; Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in February 1998; Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger in 1998; Rep. Nancy Pelosi in 1998; General Wesley Clark in 2002; Sen. John Rockefeller in 2002; French President Jacques Chirac in 2003 — all of them, and many more, expressed the overwhelming consensus of the Washington elite of both parties that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD and that this made him a serious threat both to our allies in the region and the United States itself.



And Linker concludes:


Twelve years later, rather than doing the hard work of figuring out why so many Democrats (including the party's presumptive presidential nominee in 2016) made the unwise decision to support the invasion, liberals have decided to go easy on themselves by treating the Bush administration not as foolish but as sinister, conniving, evil. What a relief it must be to exonerate oneself from complicity in a catastrophic mistake by portraying oneself as an innocent victim of a diabolical plot.


It's an interesting column, one worth reading and I applaud the effort.

I started speaking out against the Iraq War publicly in February 2003 (one month before the war started).

To me, today's discussion is b.s.

Whether it's a little government monkey like Mike Morrell making statements that no one should believe or the continued other nonsense, it doesn't really matter.

I didn't base my objection on WMD being present or not being present.

Apparently, there are a lot of idiots or, in fairness, a lot of people who were silent when it mattered that now want to pretend they were brave.

Brave would never having been declaring that the Iraq War had to be fought or not fought based on WMDs.

WMDs couldn't be proven or disproven short of the United Nations weapons inspectors being allowed to do their job.  (Bully Boy Bush did not allow them to do their job.)

I am never gong to build an argument around something I can't prove or disprove.

I don't know anyone in the early days against the war who was going around saying, "Saddam doesn't have WMDs!"  I'm sure some people some where did that.  But those of us that were speaking out -- especially on the college lecture circuit -- were not making that claim.

And I really find it dishonest that these Democratic partsians are today trying to pretend that WMD was the issue.

WMD was the side show.

I spoke out against the illegal war because it was illegal.

Just War theory didn't spring up in the last five days of 2002.

Its roots go back to Saint Augustine and Thomas of Aquin -- and even pre-date that if you pull in The Mahabharata.  Centuries of legal theory, centuries of ethical exploration resulted in the Just War theory. 

Bully Boy Bush was trashing that.

There is no go-it-alone justification unless you are attacked.

The US was not attacked by Iraq.


There was no legal justification to go to war with Iraq.  There was no ethical justification.

What Bully Boy Bush did was upend the law, upend tradition and insist that there was a new justification for war:  You could now legally go to war with a country because you suspected that at some point in the near or distant future they might decide to attack you.

There was no imminent threat nor was the US responding to an attack that had taken place.

The Iraq War was a war of choice.

The choice being made -- not by the people of America, not by the people of Iraq -- was going to have long lasting implications.  For Iraq, the most immediate implication would be the tragedy of lives lost both during combat and in the immediate years following.  For the US, it would mean our government was not just embracing its inner thug, it was now fondling its inner thug in public.

There would be no more efforts to pretend -- and there haven't been.

Libya?

We bombed it.

I beliee Hillary Clinton's argument is: We did it because we could.

There is no more pretense that the US government follows the law. 

It just acts as a big bully doing whatever it wants.

Now the uni-polar system doesn't last for long.

In part, that's due to the fact that bullies breed hostility.

Whether a multi-polar system will come into being or a bi-polar system will return (Russia versus the US again?), something will take its place.

But WMD is nonsense and b.s.

And not noting how certain Republicans and Democrats felt that the uni-polar system meant the US could (and should) do whatever it wants? 

I'm really not into stupidity.

I feel like I'm watching five-year-olds trying to explain rain. 

Only with five-year-olds, they're cute.

There's nothing cute about adults basing arguments 12 years after the start of the Iraq War on whether or not it was known that Iraq had WMD before the Iraq War started.

When the US government was moving towards going to war on Iraq and doing so without even the cover of a United Nations authorization, when they were doing it with no attack from Iraq and no imminent attack, they were upending the rules of engagement and destroying the traditions that engagement were based upon.

Generally, when rulers act as the US government did in 2003, they're not seen well in history.  Nazi Germany didn't feel the need to follow international law, didn't feel the need to embrace Just War theory. 

The actions were criminal. 






RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"





Wednesday, May 20, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY LEAVES THEM STUMPED!

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

IN IOWA, A FOCUS GROUP HAS BECOME THE FIRST TEST CASE -- ASKED TO NAME A SUCCESS FOR CRANKY CLINTON DURING HER LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE DEPT, THEY COULD THINK OF NOTHING.


NOT ONE THING.


ON THE PLUS FOR CRANKY, NO ONE SAID ANYTHING LIKE, "SHE FARTED CONSTANTLY THROUGH ONE PRESENTATION AFTER ANOTHER."

BUT EVEN SO, YOU'D THINK FOUR YEARS WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE ACCOMPLISHMENT.

YOU'D THINK.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



We're going to start with a  quick round of Name That Republican! 


December 1, 2009, US President Barack Obama declared "we are bringing the Iraq War to a responsible end."

Name the Republican, desperate for glory, who quickly added:

That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform.  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. 


The US gave Iraq something, did they?

Those damn Republicans always so full of themselves, seeing tragedy and crimes as a gift.  Shame on them, may they rot in --

Huh?

Oh, that was Barack.


Yeah, Barack's repeatedly lied about the Iraq War.


Most infamously he lied in his March 26, 2014 speech -- so much lying we needed the March 26, 2014 snapshot and the March 27, 2014 snapshot to cover it.


You can use those links for our comments but let's note reaction from others to that hideous speech.



William Rivers Pitt (Truthout) declared:

Truthout does not forget. We were at the forefront of the struggle against that disastrous war, and we will not stand idly by as an alleged "good guy" slaps a coat of paint over it to cover up the blood on the walls. President Obama sounds for all the world like a used car salesman trying to peddle a lemon, and that will not happen on our watch. 




DS Wright (Firedoglake) noted:

Yesterday President Barack Obama tried to claim that the United States government’s actions in the 2003 Iraq War were legal and different than Russia’s actions in Crimea because the US had “sought to work within the international system.” Apparently merely seeking to work within the international system is some kind of get out of jail free card. If one follows Obama’s logic then Russia need only to have “sought” a doomed UN resolution justifying the annexation of Crimea before doing so, this would have made their actions legitimate under Obama’s standard.



 The Voice of Russia offered:

Matt Howard and Ross Caputi, members of the Iraq Veterans Against the War, spoke with Common Dreams by phone and said that the president's narrative on the events that led up to the Iraq invasion, inside or outside the context of Ukraine, was simply "not grounded in reality." "We went from one lie, which was weapons of mass destruction, to another lie which was liberation and freedom," said Howard. "This idea that Iraq is somehow better off or that the US waged a so-called 'Good War' is ridiculous."



Grasp the above.  And there are two points here.

The first, a lot of people -- usually stupid people -- but some are also whores -- are glomming onto remarks by candidates for the GOP's presidential nomination to insist that this person or that person isn't fit to serve.

Now Jeb Bush brings his own problems on himself.

No one forced him to pick one position and then, after the press kicks him around the room for a day or two, rush to pick another position.

That's something worthy of comment -- it's probably killed his career, in fact.

But this nonsense of jumping on remarks?

Okay, let's do that.

But let's do that honestly.

In which case, there's Mike Gravel and who else?

Who besides former US Senator Mike Gravel has told the truth about Iraq?  The whole truth, not the half truth?  What politician?

Not Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader's made himself useless and needs to find a rocking chair in an old folk's home.  Bernie Sanders?  Bernie's lied for years.  Yes, he voted against the war in 2002 but he never did join the Out of Iraq Caucus while he as in the House and he never really did anything to stop the illegal war after it started.

US House Rep John Conyers had no power and had to hold hearings in a basement room -- but he held hearings there.  What did Bernie Sanders ever do?

The same media that's all over this GOP politician or that?

They mocked John Conyers for holding hearings.  They mocked him, they laughed at him, they ridiculed him.

So I'm not really in the mood to get behind them today even though I don't particularly care for the people they're targeting.

I do care about fairness.

Barack's remarks have been dishonest and disgusting.

Pretty much every national politician -- of both parties and of Bernie's laughable Democratic Socialist party -- has lied about Iraq.

Which brings us to part two of this.

Elderly poindexter Paul Krugman got praised this week when he shouldn't have been.

In 2008, Paul was for Hillary and against Barack and, back then, he could be honest about Barack.  But we all saw how quickly Paul could whore.  No one whores like an elderly whore locked away in academia.

In his ridiculous column, Paul declared:

1) the Iraq War "was worse than a mistake, it was a crime."

2) the lies were "actually obvious even at the time"


And I can agree with that.

I can even agree that there was a campaign of "insinuation" where charges were stated or inferred but there was never any proof provided.

Insinuation is also my biggest problem with the column.

Paul claims he stands for truth -- no whore stands except maybe on their head and that's only if the john paying for it is into that.

But he tells you about Bully Boy Bush and the White House and blah blah blah.

But that's not the truth, not the full truth.

It is the "fool truth" and many fools rush to embrace it and amplify it.

Paul's insinuations all go to the Republicans.

"Democrat" never pops up nor do any of the Democrats who supported the war -- not the ones who did so with the 2002 vote nor the many votes which followed after.

Paul's not providing the full truth.

Frances A. Boyle's not a politician.  Maybe that's why he can provide the full truth?



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Media Advisory: America's Newest Generation of Vet..."
"Ramadi and spin"
"The No S**t Tweet of the Week"
"Woody Allen"
"Hillary of the 1%"
""Rhiannon""
"scandal's low rated finale"
"Stevie Nicks' "Beautiful Child""
"Silver Springs"
""Welcome to the room Sara""
"Honey Hi"
"Iraq"
"Cranky worked hard culling those e-mails!"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY SPEAKS!"






Tuesday, May 19, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY SPEAKS!

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


TODAY CRANKY CLINTON WANTED TO GET SERIOUS.

AND YOU KNOW SHE MEANT IT BECAUSE SHE SET ASIDE THE SHEEP DOG 'DO TO GO FOR PAGEANT HAIR.

AND CRANKY INSISTED THAT SHE WANTS THE STATE DEPT. TO SPEED UP THE RELEASE OF HER E-MAILS.

AS SHE EXPLAINED, "THIS IS THE GOOD STUFF.  I TRASHED ALL THE BAD STUFF.  THIS IS WHAT I WANTED THE PUBLIC TO SEE AND IT REALLY TICKS ME OFF THAT THESE NEEDED AND NEEDFUL AND NEEDABLE E-MAILS ARE NOT GETTING OUT TO THE PUBLIC."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last June, the Islamic State seized Mosul.

The Iraqi military fled.

In some sort of early anniversary celebration,  the Islamic State -- which still controls Mosul -- seized Ramadi over the weekend.


Oh, and  the Iraqi military fled.

Hamdi Alkhshali and Catherine E. Shoichet (CNN) reported, "The key Iraqi city of Ramadi fell to ISIS on Sunday after government security forces pulled out of a military base on the west side of the city, the mayor and a high-ranking security official said."  Al Jazeera added, "Iraqi special forces soldiers were reported to be fleeing the city on Sunday as the armed group succeeded in breaching their last holdout."

This after how many millions (more) US tax dollars have been spent training them?

Billions?

In mid-April, Stan noted how, since August, the White House has spent over $2 billion on fighting (with combat, not with diplomacy) the Islamic State.


You can argue that things stand today exactly where they stood a year ago.

No improvement at all.

And you can click here for the Guardian's post of the Iraqi military fleeing Ramadi and the Islamic State.

This fleeing is disturbing.

Especially when you grasp that they didn't just flee open spaces in Ramadi.

Reuters notes, "Earlier, security sources said government forces evacuated a key military base after it came under attack by the insurgents, who had already taken one of the last districts still holding out." They couldn't even hold their own military base.


Every time they flee, the Islamic State gets a stronger foothold and if the military confronts them -- if! -- it's much harder to do that after they've taken a city.

If?

Mosul remains under control a year later.

What does it really say about the Iraqi military and the Iraqi government that they want to act militarily and talk about doing so but they refuse to do so.

There is no progress.

Barack's spent over a billion on Iraq -- between weapons, US forces and 'aid' -- since August and for what?  Where is the progress?

Despite Barack declaring that the only solution was a "political solution," no real work has been spent on that. Instead it's been empty promises and the focus has been on the military which, as we see again today, continues to falter and fail.

What's the end game, Barack?

Is the US going to remain in Iraq forever to prop up the US-installed government?




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraqis forces -- exactly as inept as they were one..."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hair Crimes""
"Hejira"
"Ha! Comedic Truth! (David DeGraw)"
"Iraq, Isaiah, Third, Hillary"
"The hair"
"Hillary and Shonda"
"love that transparency, Hillary"
"Will arrogance take her down?"
"The latest threat from ObamaCare"
"Bad News Hillary"
"More lies from Hillary"
"Pitch Perfect 2"
"She clams up again"
"STILL GOING……CANNES 2015 Part 1"
"The Idiotic Susan Rice"



"She needs the money upfront"
"THIS JUST IN! YOU GOTTA PAY HER FIRST!"





Saturday, May 16, 2015

THIS JUST IN! YOU GOTTA PAY HER FIRST!

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



CRANKY CLINTON CONTINUES TO REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS.

MAYBE THERE'S A REASON?

SHE GETS PAID 25 MILLION A YEAR TO SPEAK.

GREEDY CRANKY'S NOT GOING TO GIVE IT UP FOR FREE.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


QUESTION: Did you consider that the Iraqi Government is fulfilling its commitment regarding the Sunni tribes, first? And is – or will the U.S. provide the Sunni arms directly without passing the Iraqi Government?

MR RATHKE: Well, our policy on arms transfers to Iraq is – remains the same. We – all of those arms transfers are coordinated through the Iraqi central government. That’s not going to change. And as I said, Prime Minister Abadi has made it a priority to reach out to the Sunni population in particular in Anbar, and so we support those efforts.

Namo, go ahead.


QUESTION: We have seen little progress in Prime Minister Abadi’s outreach to the Sunnis, because – I mean, if you just look at the cities and towns that have been falling to ISIS in Iraq, almost all of them have been Sunni towns. It’s predominately Sunni towns. Does that – what does that tell us? Does that – doesn’t that tell us that the Iraqi army, which is basically a predominately Shia army, is unwilling to protect Sunni areas? Or doesn’t that also tell us that Prime Minister Abadi has failed in his outreach toward – to the Sunnis? Because they have been demanding weapons and also some equipment that they need to defend themselves.



MR RATHKE: Well, and the Iraqi Government has been providing it. So they --



QUESTION: But they have failed.



MR RATHKE: No, but – I wouldn’t accept that characterization. The prime minister has been reaching out. He has made the commitments to enlist and to arm tribal fighters. And those aren’t just the commitments on paper, they’ve been happening. I was just talking about some of the most recent steps in answer to Michel’s question. And so in addition to his personal engagement in Anbar, there was just last week an induction of another thousand tribal fighters. So yes, more efforts are needed but Prime Minister Abadi has focused on this and he continues to pursue that.



That is Jeff Rathke and the State Dept's opinion.

It is not fact and should not be mistaken for fact.

The Congress begs to differ.

And too bad for the State Dept, Congress can cut off funding.

Now the White House and the State Dept can go around Congress if Congress cuts off funding -- the White House and the State Dept can do that by (a) breaking the law, (b) creating a Constitutional crisis and (c) courting impeachment of US President Barack Obama.

If they choose to pursue that, it will certainly liven up the remainder of Lame Duck Obama's final term in office.

Congress' opinion on the matter can be found below:








(l)
Requirements relating to assistance for fiscal year 2016
(1)
Assessment
(A)
In general
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to the appropriate congressional committees an assessment of the extent to which the Government of Iraq is meeting the conditions described in subparagraph (B).
(B)
Conditions
The conditions described in this subparagraph are that the Government of Iraq—
(i)
is addressing the grievances of ethnic and sectarian minorities;
(ii)
is increasing political inclusiveness;
(iii)
is conducting efforts sufficient to reduce support for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and improve stability in Iraq;
(iv)
is legislating the Iraqi Sunni National Guard;
(v)
is ensuring that minorities are represented in adequate numbers, trained, and equipped in government security organizations;
(vi)
is ending support to Shia militias and stopping abuses of elements of the Iraqi population by such militias;
(vii)
is ensuring that supplies, equipment, and weaponry supplied by the United States are appropriately distributed to security forces with a national security mission in Iraq, including the Kurdish Peshmerga, Sunni tribal security forces with a national security mission, and the Iraqi Sunni National Guard;
(viii)
is releasing prisoners from ethnic or sectarian minorities who have been arrested and held without trial or to charge and try such prisoners in a fair, transparent, and prompt manner; and
(ix)
is taking such other actions as the Secretaries consider appropriate.
(C)
Update
The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State may submit an update of the assessment required under subparagraph (A) to the extent necessary.
(D)
Submission
The assessment required under subparagraph (A) and the update of the assessment authorized under subparagraph (C) may be submitted as part of the quarterly report required under subsection (d).
(2)
Restriction on direct assistance to Government of Iraq
If the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State do not submit the assessment required by paragraph (1) or if the Secretaries submit the assessment required by paragraph (1) but the assessment indicates that the Government of Iraq has not substantially achieved the conditions contained in the assessment, the Secretaries shall withhold the provision of assistance pursuant to subsection (a) directly to the Government of Iraq for fiscal year 2016 until such time as the Secretaries submit an update of the assessment that indicates that the Government of Iraq has substantially achieved the conditions contained in the assessment.
(3)
Direct assistance to certain covered groups
(A)
In general
Of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this section for fiscal year 2016, not less than 25 percent of such funds shall be obligated and expended for assistance directly to the groups described in subparagraph (E) (of which not less than 12.5 percent of such funds shall be obligated and expended for assistance directly to the group described in clause (i) of such subparagraph).
(B)
Additional direct assistance
If the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State withhold the provision of assistance pursuant to subsection (a) directly to the Government of Iraq for fiscal year 2016 in accordance with paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Secretaries shall obligate and expend not less than an additional 60 percent of all unobligated funds authorized to be appropriated under this section for fiscal year 2016 for assistance directly to the groups described in subparagraph (E).
(C)
Cost-sharing requirement inapplicable
The cost-sharing requirement of subsection (k) shall not apply with respect to funds that are obligated or expended for assistance directly to the groups described in subparagraph (E).
(D)
Rule of construction
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the groups described in subparagraph (E) shall each be deemed to be a country for purposes of meeting the eligibility requirements of section 3 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2753) and chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.).
(E)
Covered groups
The groups described in this subparagraph are—
(i)
the Kurdish Peshmerga;
(ii)
Sunni tribal security forces with a national security mission; and
(iii)
the Iraqi Sunni National Guard.



That's Sec. 1223 of H.R. 1735 which passed the House on Friday (it remains a bill, the Senate has to pass their version) on a vote with 269 members supporting it (41 were Democrats) and 151 opposing it (143 were Democrats) while 12 members elected not to vote.


Wow, there is widespread Democratic opposition to this Iraq proposal.

No.

The Iraq issue is the least controversial element of the bill (well the changes related to the registration and tracking of sex offenders is probably the section that has the most support from Democrats and Republicans, but after that, Iraq's the least controversial).

If you're not grasping that, Democrats are noting publicly their problems with the bill.  Leo Shane III (Military Times) reports, "House lawmakers on Friday approved a $612 billion defense authorization bill for next year despite objections from Democratic leaders and a White House veto threat over plans to skirt spending caps with oversized temporary war funds."


That makes me laugh.

For two reasons.

First, I've been at these hearings, Armed Services Comittee hearings, and heard Democrats and Republicans on the Committee -- both sides -- insist that the military must be sacrosacnt and not part of the sequestration (automatic cuts) and blah, blah, blah.



And, for the record, in the Veterans Affairs Comittee hearings (House and Senate), we hear the same statements, the automatic cuts should not effect the VA.

Every committee works to protect its own turf.

And now Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, is objecting to fudging numbers because . . . she thinks sequestration should just be eliminated when it comes to the military.

More money flows to the DoD than any other element in the budget but Nancy is opposed to cut being implemented on Defense.

Once upon a time, Americans believed in a thing called  "shared sacrifice."

Meaning we all share in the cuts equally.

But they don't want to do that -- it's not full of the high drama Congress and the White House count on.

It's like the issue of the homeless in America.

Congress doesn't give a damn.

Unless it's veterans.

If it's veterans homeless, oh, let's talk, let's do, let's fund.

But the American citizens that Congress is supposed to represent -- all citizens, not just veterans?

They don't give a damn.

Nor does Barack.

He's promised that veterans homelessness ends this year.

Well bully for him.

But when does the US government ever intend to end homelessness in America?

The crisis exploded during Ronald Reagan's two terms as president.

And he's more or less blamed for it.

But Ronald Reagan's not only out of the White House, he's dead.

What prevented George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Bully Boy Bush and now Barack Obama from seriously addressing this issue and ending homelessness in America?

The only thing that stopped them was a lack of caring.


(HW is infamous for stepping over the sleeping homeless while leaving various DC eateries.)



Paul Kane (Washington Post) offers that "Democrats largely opposed the measure Friday because of their demands for new negotiations to set up different spending limits on defense and non-defense agencies that were imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act."



I hope that's clear enough for everyone.


The second reason I laugh?


The Iraq measure in the bill was supposed to be so controversial.


It is to the White House but it's not to Congress -- not to Congressional Democrats, not to Congressional Republicans.




Well they bellowed, and they hollered
And they threw each other down
Down in this valley
This cruel and lovely valley
Oh it should have been an alley
In some low down part of town

-- "Memorial Day," written by Carly Simon, first appears on her album Spy




And didn't they, though?



Didn't the press -- mirroring the White House -- because goodness forbid they come up with their own behavior -- insist that this was wrong, so wrong, so wrong?


Didn't they tell you that this Iraq section was going to be rethought?  And maybe pulled from the bill?


Didn't happen.


Never was going to happen.


And only idiots who hadn't attended Congressional hearings would have bought and/or promoted that nonsense.


It passed.


And it's not the source of Democratic objections.


Even the White House has sat its wild ass down on this matter realizing that they never had a chance at turning Congressional opinion on that in the first place but certainly not after certain thugs in Iraq -- thugs in the Iraqi government -- thought they could publicly threaten harm to the United States?


Congress is many things.  Arrogant to be sure.  But it's not a weak-willed president desperate to cave and remain silent in the face of threats from another country.


More than anything else, those threats solidified support in the House for this already popular provision.



So the Democrats are bothered that, to avoid spending caps, the bill ups the temporary expendiatures.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Facing up to stagnation"
"Single Mom Fired for Organizing Strike for $15 and..."
"Musical of matchgirls’ fight strikes a light in da..."
"Isakson, Miller Statement on Replacement Denver VA..."
"Why is an attack being called a "riot" and was Qas..."
"Arrow season finale"
"Playlists and lists in general"
"The Originals"
"The Mindy Project"
"Idiot of the week"
"Sex offenders in the military"
"'revenge' - the good"
"Revenge (the echoes)"
"Rape and assault in the military"
"Advanced Weapons Technology War Games"
"America's jaw drops open"
"THIS JUST IN! THE COUNTRY IS SHOCKED!"


Friday, May 15, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THE COUNTRY IS SHOCKED!

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

POLITICO IS REPORTING THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAS SOLD HER SOUL.

THIS HAS LED SHOCKED AMERICANS TO EXCLAIM, "SHE HAD A SOUL? WHO KNEW!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:




 It's most likely the end of Jeb Bush's run for the White House -- even if he doesn't know that.

This week, the former governor of Florida got attention for remarks he made about Iraq.

His floundering political campaign immediately got massive attention.  This attention was big news for a candidate who had trailed Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Scott Walker and Senator Rand Paul in many polls of candidates vying for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.


Sunday it started with leaks of an interview to be aired Monday in which he declared that, had he been US President in 2003, he would have done what his brother, Bully Boy Bush, did: Invade Iraq.  We noted on Monday how this could give lift to his struggling campaign.  On Wednesday, as he modified his remarks, we went over this again, how it speaks to the Republican base and could advance his standing.  Thursday, Harry Enten and Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight 'discovered' the same argument.

They 'find' those answers too late.

Jeb Bush has made a spectacle of himself.

Monday through Wednesday, he was slammed by left pundits and by the MSM press.

This wasn't a bad thing.

Sarah Palin received that treatment and did not run from it.  She used it, she harnessed it and she rode it to political fame and to popularity on the right.

Jeb could have done the same.

The criticism of Bully Boy Bush was always that he was not his father's son, he was his mother's son.  Petty, cruel and mean like his mother, BBB never met a grudge he couldn't f**k.

Jeb, by contrast, suffered from the same image problems their father had.  George H.W. Bush was always having to prove that he wasn't the light weight he appeared to be, the one not quite on the ball, the one who didn't grasp the stakes.

Jeb is his father's son.

Which is why he can't connect with the Republican base.

But this week, he had his chance.

He could show he was someone who didn't betray his own brother to garner a few votes, he could stand for the (illegal) war that remains popular with the GOP base, he could show that he was strong enough to stand against MSM attacks.

And as he modified his statement -- via his own remarks and those of surrogates, he was still okay.

Then, today, he decides to walk the remarks back completely, to disown them.

That's it.

He's weak Jeb Bush, as weak as his father, unable to stand up to the press therefore unable to stand up for the needs and desires of the Republican base.

That was the 'crime' of his father.

That is why his father had only one term as president.

That is why it is Ronald Reagan who remains a GOP hero while Bush, who served as Reagan's vice president, is not anyone the base ever describes as a "hero" -- just someone who's most notable moment even now remains his throwing up on Japan's then-Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi.

Jeb spewed a stream of cowardice today.

And the GOP will embrace strength and even get behind false macho.

But they run from weakness (out of fear).

A Republican candidate who can be forced to retract his stated opinion because of a hostile media?

That's weak to the GOP base.

Even those Republicans who might have disagreed with him are going to be dismayed that, after taking a position, he so quickly abandoned it just because he couldn't take the heat from the media.

John Kerry had hoped to make a run for the presidency in 2008.

That dream went up in smoke.

We noted it in real time, the California incident where he shot off his mouth to the delight of some but ensured that he would never be seen as presidential.

Jeb's actions today are very similar.

This is probably the end of the road for his political dreams.

He doesn't grasp that yet.

Neither does Nate Silver's band of thieves.


But after they read this breakdown, Nate's band will probably, in a few days, be humming the tune I've composed.

Jeb will probably remain in denial as long as big money holds up, telling himself that by focusing on New Hampshire, he's ensuring the buzz of strong early victory.

He's probably not going to carry New Hampshire and, having already abandoned Iowa, it will likely be two losses in a row.  If he's stayed in that long, New Hampshire will probably be where the campaign money begins to dry up.

Of course, he's supposed to be the smart Bush so he might read the writing on the wall before 2016 and announce early he's shutting down his campaign.




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Congress advances federal abortion ban"
"While others are horrified by the violence, Brett ..."
"Norman Solomon's important column"
"Melissa & Joan"
"The illegal spying"
"scandal - just stupid"
"As the Doobie Brothers said, What a fool believes"
"Only the poor go to prison"
"Tweet of the Week"
"Tweet of the week"
"Like Joni Mitchell, I don't know where I stand"
"F**k you, David Walsh"
"He's got a friend -- a crazy one -- but a fan"
"Sweet Moldy James?"







Thursday, May 14, 2015

Sweet Moldy James?

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


FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE CRAZIES.

CASE IN POINT, NASAL SINGER JAMES TAYLOR -- THE PAT BOONE OF HIS GENERATION -- DECLARED BARRY O TO BE THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT, IN LONDON, TAYLOR WAS NOT RELEASED FROM THE MENTAL INSTITUTION, HE BROKE OUT.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Tomorrow is supposed to be US President Barack Obama's big photo op at Camp David to prove that he's friends with the Arabs in the Middle East and that they stand with him.

Of course, they don't.  Not these days.

His embrace of Iran has disturbed officials in the region and threatens to result in instability or futher instability.

In what has been interpreted as an international snub, Saudi Arabia's King Salman has refused to travel to the US for the event and has instead sent two Saudi princes.

Jeff Mason (Reuters) reports that Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and Prince Mohammed bin Salam were welcomed by Barack at the White House today.

The White House released this transcript of remarks at the brief photo op.



THE PRESIDENT:   Well, it’s wonderful to welcome back the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef, as well as Deputy Crown Prince Salman.  We are very pleased to have them both here today, as well as the delegation from Saudi Arabia.
As all of you are aware, the United States and Saudi Arabia have an extraordinary friendship and relationship that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt and King Faisal, and we are continuing to build that relationship during a very challenging time.
This gives us an opportunity to discuss some of the bilateral issues, including the crisis in Yemen and how we can build on the ceasefire that’s been established to restore a process for an inclusive, legitimate government inside of Yemen.  And it will also give us a chance to discuss some of the broader issues that will be the topic of the GCC-U.S. Summit tomorrow. 
I can say that, on a personal level, my work and the U.S. government’s work with these two individuals, Crown Prince bin Nayef, on counterterrorism issues has been absolutely critical not only to maintaining stability in the region but also protecting the American people.  And I want to thank them for their extraordinary support and hard work and coordination on our counterterrorism efforts.  And they came in as a critical component of our coalition in the fight against ISIL, and I’m sure that we’ll have opportunities to discuss as well the progress that’s been made in the fight against ISIL in Iraq, as well as the continuing crisis in Syria, and the importance of us addressing not only the humanitarian crisis but the need to bring about a more inclusive and legitimate government there.
Well, I just thank you so much for your presence here today and for your longstanding friendship.


CROWN PRINCE BIN NAYEF:  (As interpreted.)  I would like to thank the President for your kind invitation extended to me and to His Royal Highness, the Deputy Crown Prince.  I wish to convey to you the greetings and appreciation of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman, who attaches -- along with everybody in the Kingdom -- great importance to the strategic and historic relationship between our two countries.
This historic relationship we seek to strengthen and broaden and deepen with time.  Mr. President, you spoke about the situation in the region, and we look forward to, God willing, to working with you to overcome the challenges and to bring about calm and stability in the region.
Once again, Mr. President, I want to thank you for this meeting.


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you, everybody.


Q    Mr. President, what do you plan to tell the GCC leaders about Iran and the nuclear deal?


PRESIDENT OBAMA:  We’ll have a whole press conference, Julie.  You’ll get all kinds of questions.


Q    I’m holding you to that.



PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you, guys.



Julie is Julie Pace, AP correspondent.


The President tried to spin pretty.  Andrew Beatty (AFP) observes:


But the warm words belied deep malaise over Obama's perceived disengagement from the region and willingness to talk to Iran.
The Arab and largely Sunni Muslim states suspect Obama's nuclear deal with Tehran is a harbinger of a bigger role for their Persian and Shiite arch-foe.



Barack's photo ops this week does not include the Sunni Arab delegation from Iraq.  But two of those visiting the US, former Finance Minister Rafe al-Assawi and the Governor of Nineveh Province Atheel al-Nuajaif (brother of Iraqi Vice President Osama al-Nujaifi) were hosted at a Brookings Institution event on Monday which was moderated by Kenneth Pollack.  We've covered the event in the Monday and Tuesday snapshots.  Today, we'll note this section.




Kenneth Pollack: You [Rafe al-Assawi]  made the point -- and Governor feel free to disagree with this if you do but I have the sense that you also agree with this -- and it was certainly the impression that most of Washington got -- that the problem is not Haider al-Abadi per se.  Prime Minister Abadi wants to do the right thing and that was certainly  the impression that he left here in Washington, that he very much knows where Iraq needs to go and wants to do it.  The problem is not the what, the problem is the how.  And if that is something you both agree with, I'd love to get your thoughts on how you believe the United State might help him to better actually achieve those goals.  Rafe, would you like to start?


Former Minister Rafe al-Assawi:  Okay, thank you very much, Ken, again.  This a broad, very big question.  If we answer it, that means we'll liberate Iraq from ISIS but also from the militias  would save Iraq not just from ISIS and from the militias so all our presentations will answer that so thank you very much.  Look gentlemen -- ladies and gentlemen -- talking about Haider al-Abadi who inherited a very damaged political and security situation -- and he's a good guy.  Yes, I agree with you.  He's trying, yes. He needs to be supported -- both Americans, both Arab Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds, yes, I agree on that.  But until this moment, the program of the government has not been implemented according to his commitment in front of the Parliament.  I'm talking about the timetable.  So some of the stories like amnesty -- he talks about six months for example.  Now?  Nothing took place. And if you come to all other points of reconciliation, de-Ba'athifcaiton, etc.  So yes, I agree we should help Haider al-Abadi.  America can help to rebuild the Iraqi security forces that I talk about because without building national security forces it means Iraq would be controlled totally by militias on one side and by ISIS on the other side.  And this is the question -- the story of arming Sunnis: Would arming Sunnis divide Iraq?  The question is: Is Iraq united now?  More than 50% is under the control of ISIS.  We want to bring back, restore united Iraq by arming the Sunnis. So when we send Sunni fighters and Kurds to liberate territory from ISIS, we want to bring back the unity of Iraq.  So helping him in dismantling militias on the Shi'ite side, bringing back state of law, supporting him in the very rapid arming of the Iraqi fighters -- Kurd and Sunni according to our suggestion of this committee because central government keeps saying that if we push the weapons to the Sunni tribes and the Sunnis may push it.  Is it the Sunnis who will push the weapons or or the defeated Iraqi army who'll give his tanks in Mosul when he's defeated?  So you see, this is not justification.  You cannot keep saying -- putting question mark on everything. You have to trust people who are fighting ISIS.  So this is dismantlying militias putting all the resources of all the Iraqis supporting them in fighting ISIS, supporting Iraqis in presenting the draft of national guard because we agreed upon local forces that catch security on the ground in Nineveh on its own and in Anbar local, by the way, and on the southern province also so south has its own national guard.  The problem is national guard has not moved yet.  So these are the main topics on which America can help.  Finally, America can also work to support Abadi on oil because when the prices have collapsed, it's very difficult for the government to cover the costs of all these huge numbers of displaced people, the story of international funds may help also.

Kenneth Pollack:  Governor Atheel?

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi:  I believe in the unity of the stronger groups. I think it will not be -- Iraq will not be united if we strengthen one group and weaken the others.  So what we need is to strengthen the Sunni group so that they can fight ISIS also they will return to balance the Iraqi forces.  And US can do that. It can strengthen the Iraq, the Sunni groups, the Kurds and the legal Shia group who are in the Iraqi Constitution.  

Kenneth Pollack:  Governor, let me follow that up with a specific question to you -- but, Rafe, I would also be glad to get your thoughts -- the process of reconciliation was something you both talked about, that Prime Minister Abadi talks about.  Again, it is clear that every Iraqi who knows anything about the situation understands that this is critical.  Does the US have a role to play in fostering that process of reconciliation because, again, we see people like you, we see people like the Prime Minister talking about the process of reconciliation [but] we don't really see it happening. Is it happening behind the scenes?  Is there more that can be done? Should the US be doing more? Governor?

Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi:  I think that there's a real wish for the reconciliation in Iraq especially when some of the Shi'ite groups get the authority and they didn't want to lose it.  So they want the reconciliation to keep the power in their hand and it cannot be a reconciliation like that.  If we are talking with real reconciliation, as I said, we need to strengthen the other groups to give them the freedom to choose their representatives so they will be in balance with others.  And that will work.  I'm talking about elections.  We need elections getting all of the groups of the Sunnis -- not only me and Dr. Rafe -- all the Sunni groups must be involved in that election.  And so we will have all the Sunni community inside the political process.


I'm not of the opinion that Haider al-Abadi is a "good person."

I honestly don't care whether he is or not or whether he wakes up smiling or has a pleasant bowel movement.

I care if he delivers on his promise.

He was installed (by the US government) to demonstrate to a fracturing Iraq -- and a targeted and disenchanted Sunni group -- that democracy -- in some form -- was still a possibility for Iraq.

We'll go into democracy or 'democracy' in Iraq in Thursday's snapshot.

But for now, let's just note that Haider's installation as prime minister was a last gasp effort to try to save Iraq -- last gasp effort by the US government.

And let's note that Barack declared, eleven months ago, that the only answer to Iraq's crises was "a political solution."

Now if that was sincere, if the whole point was to trick and screw over the Iraqi people (yet again), then the US government should have been aiding and facilitating reconciliation.

They should have made every weapon delivery, every equipment delivery, every bit of financial aid promised and delivered conditional upon steps towards national reconciliation.

Not empty words, mind you, but actual steps, actual actions taken.

You laugh he said you think you're immune
Go look at your eyes they're full of moon
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you
All those pretty lies pretty lies
When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies
Only pretty lies just pretty lies

-- "The Last Time I Saw Richard," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Blue album


Those pretty lies aren't doing a damn thing to help Iraq.

And it's a sign of just how awful thug Nouri al-Maliki was as prime minister that Haider al-Abadi doing nothing for eight months is a sign of 'improvement.'

Or treated as though it is.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"IAVA Veteran Career Bootcamp: Holistic Approach to..."
"Iraq: Protests, bombs, the pampered children of of..."
"Of all the stupidity . . ."
"State of Affairs (Nick)"
"Oh, look, it's the War Hawk Amanpour"
"A cheap little liar"
"Supergirl"
"Julia Roberts still thinks she matters"
"Barack"
"The truth about Dave"
"TV lethargy"
"revenge - the worst"
"Cranky has nothing to say -- not a single word"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY COURTS LATINO VOTERS!"





  • Wednesday, May 13, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY COURTS LATINO VOTERS!

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

    CRANKY CLINTON'S CONTINUED SILENT GAME ALLOWS HER TO AVOID MANY TOPICS INCLUDING THE ISSUE OF IRAQ.

    THE PRESS HAS PRETENDED TO BE INTERESTED (AND OUTRAGED) OVER JEB BUSH'S ANSWER EARLIER THIS WEEK TO WOULD HE -- WELL, TURNS OUT, HE'S NOT SURE WHAT QUESTION HE WAS ANSWERING.

    GOOD THING HE DIDN'T TRY TO FUDGE WITH "BIG BIRD!"  WHILE BIG BIRD DOES HAVE HIS FANS FEW QUESTIONS IN A POLITICAL RACE HAVE TO DO WITH BIG BIRD -- NOW BERT AND ERNIE, THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER STORY.

    AND SO IS CRANKY'S EFFORTS AT RESTRAINT OF LATE WHEN SHE'S USUALLY THE FIRST TO JOIN A DOG PILE.

    BUT NOT ON THE TOPIC OF IRAQ.  ON THAT TOPIC, SHE JUST WANTS TO STAY SILENT -- FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY SAID, "MAKE IT QUICK, I'M BOILING KITTENS."

    WHEN INFORMED WE WERE CALLING ABOUT IRAQ, CRANKY SUDDENLY BROKE INTO A VERY WEAK-ASS SPANISH ACCENT AS SHE INSISTED, "OH NO, THE PRETTY LADY SHE NO BE HOME.  PRETTY LADY HILLARY WITH PRETTY BLOND HAIR NO HOME.  SHE IS SO PRETTY AND SO BEAUTIFUL.  SHE WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.  BUT SHE NO HOME.  CALL BACK LATER.  YOU GO NOW.  BYE BYE."






    It was not a good day for US President Barack Obama.  Alexander Bolton (The Hill) notes, "Senate Democrats on Tuesday delivered a stinging blow to President Obama's trade agenda by voting to prevent the chamber from tackling fast-track legislation."  Today also saw him criticized as sexist for his remarks on Senator Elizabeth Warren with NOW's Terry O'Neill declaring his remarks were sexist and that their "clear subtext is that 'the little lady' just doesn't know what she's talking about" while Senator Sherrod Brown stated, "I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that.  I think that the president has made this more personal than he needed to."

    As bad as today may be for Barack, next month may be worse.

    June 2015 will mark the one year anniversary of Barack rebuking Iraq's then-prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and insisting the only way for the country to emerge from its crises was via a "political solution."  That publicly stated realization has been followed by months and months of the US government refusing to work with Iraq towards a political solution or to demand that Iraq's leaders take necessary steps.

    Iraq came up in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke.



    QUESTION: Okay. And then some Sunni – Iraqi Sunni leaders are here in town in Washington, D.C., including Rafe al-Essawi, who is wanted by the Iraqi court. Can you tell us why they are here and whether they have met any State Department officials?


    MR RATHKE: Well, we’re aware that the former Iraqi deputy prime minister and the governor of Nineveh province are visiting Washington this week. It’s an unofficial visit, not organized by the U.S. Government. They have requested meetings at the Department of State, so we expect that senior department officials who work on issues related to Iraq and ISIL will meet with them during their stay, but I don’t have further --


    QUESTION: Are they going to meet Mr. Essawi?


    MR RATHKE: I’m sorry?


    QUESTION: Are they going to meet Mr. Essawi as well?


    MR RATHKE: I don’t have further information on the meetings. As again – as I said, this is an unofficial visit. So they’ve requested meetings here, and we will meet with them. I don’t have a full lineup of exactly who’s going to participate.


    QUESTION: Well, when you meet with them, will you be able to share some more information?



    MR RATHKE: I don’t have any further information. I’d refer you back to their delegation to talk about the details.

    Yesterday in DC, Rafe al-Issawi appeared at Brookings Institution event with Nineveh Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi.  The event was moderated by Kenneth Pollack.


    Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi: [. . .]  the volunteers are ready to fight as soon as they get weapons.  By now we have thousands of fighters who have graduated from these camps [run by international trainers] and are ready to fight but they don't have weapons.  They don't have the weapons they need for the fight for the liberation of Mosul from Da'ash.  Since last January -- now five months ago -- we are still waiting for the promises of weapons that have been made by our government in Baghdad.  Promises are nice but it's the weapons that our volunteers need, not the promises.  The force which hold Mosul after liberation  must be trusted by the people of Mosul.  That means the force must be from Mosul and its surrounding province in Nineveh. If these forces to be trusted by Mosul community the Mosul people will be on the side of the liberation and Da'ash cannot make a comeback into Mosul.  The liberation comes first, of course, but its the period after the liberation that will be decided.  Our people will be watching. 



    al-Nujaifi's remarks work with regards to Mosul.  He identified the Nineveh Province city as the equivalent of Chicago or San Francisco in the United States.

    But the remarks also go to the ongoing operation in Anbar Province where non-Sunnis are failing in their assault on Ramadi and Shi'ite militias have also found no success.  The news that 1,000 Sunni fighters might take part is seen as too little and way too late.

    Only 1,000, Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) notes as he explains:


     In response to mounting criticism that sectarian Shiite Muslim militias are committing crimes against the mostly Sunni Muslim residents of embattled Anbar province, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi has authorized training and arming Sunni militiamen to combat the Islamic State. 
    But as the first class of local Sunnis began training this week, analysts, security experts and government officials expressed concerns that the program is too small and poorly coordinated to make a difference, while others are concerned that arming the Sunnis will alienate Abadi’s Shiite militia allies, who’ve already complained about the government’s cooperation with the American-led coalition.


    Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/05/12/4521699/few-sunni-tribesmen-in-iraq-sign.html#storylink=cpy

    The remarks by Atheel al-Nujaifi  also go to the failures of Prime Minister Haider al-Obadi to live up to his part of the deal:  The US government arms Iraq to fight the Islamic State and Haider distributes those arms to the fighters -- all those fighting against the Islamic State -- Shi'ites, Kurds and Sunnis.


    But Haider has refused to supply the needed arms to the Sunnis and the Kurds.  Atheel al-Nujaifi noted the failure to provide Sunni fighters with the needed arms.

    Last week, KRG President Massoud Barzani visited DC and he noted, again, the failure of Haider and the Baghdad-based government to arm the Kurds.

    Rudaw examined Barzani's visit in a discussion featuring Nussaibah Younis and Ernie Audino with Rudaw's Namo Abdulla moderating.

    Nussaibah Younis:  I'm not at all surprised that President Barzani was well recieved in the United States. After all, the Kurdish Peshmerga -- and particularly the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga -- are the only responsible, very well equipped, very effective forces on the ground in the fight against ISIS and the United States has been absolutely desperate to support forces on the ground so that the US  is not again in the position where it has to send ground troops into Iraq.  So it makes absolute sense that President Barzani and other Kurdish leaders would be very well received in Washington.

    [. . .]

    Ernie Audino:  I think President Barzani left the meeting seemingly happy with the results of the meeting maybe not because of the independence issue -- maybe not because of that.  But we can presume that that was one of several issues he very likely discussed.  Now I wasn't in the meeting, but it's clear he certainly had to articulate a case for direct arming of the Peshmerga -- something that has not happened yet, okay?  Arms and equipment go directly to Baghdad first  and -- from my experience on the ground trying to equip the Kurdish government back in 2006, I can tell you the equipment, very little of that gets into the hands of the Peshmerga.  And right now if its on the manifest of the carrier that's landing in Baghdad and Baghdad does not want that in the hands of the Peshmerga, the Peshmerga do not get it. And the Peshmerga just got 25 mwraps.  And that's good, I'm glad   That's 10% of all the Mwraps that were delivered to Baghdad.

    Namo Abdullah:  That's mine resistant vehichles, right?

    Ernie Audino:  That's correct.  That's correct.  The Peshmerga desperately need those vehicles to cross the open ground.  But 10% landing on the ground in Baghdad going to the main effort in the fight? The Peshmerga?  That's inconsistent with sound military doctrine. 



    If Haider wants to continue to oversee the distribution, he needs to honor his word to distribute the arms and equipment.  If he can't, the US Congress is prepared to handle the responsibility he's shirked.

    There is genuine concern in Iraq over Haider's inability to deal fairly.

    At Monday's event, Atheel al-Nujaifi also noted, "President Obama last month pledged $200 million in humanitarian aid.  With this humanitarian aid, President Obama promised, to be on hand immediately in Mosul after liberation.  Or  will it be tied up in Baghdad's bureaucracy?"

    And that's a very good question since so much of the money in Iraq tends to vanish and never reached the intended or the needy.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"