CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS LAUNCHED HIS ANTI-BULLYING PUSH CONFUSING MUCH OF THE NATION.
THESE REPORTERS SPOKE WITH BARRY O'S NEW WALKER, JAY CARNEY, THIS MORNING.
"SERIOUSLY?" ASKED CARNEY. "DON'T YOU GET IT? BARRY O WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT BULLYING IN 2009 OR 2010. THAT'S WHEN HE BULLIED OBAMACARE THROUGH THE CONGRESS. DENNIS KUCINICH STILL HAS NASTY BURNS FROM THE ATOMIC WEDGIE BARRY O GAVE HIM. BUT THEN CAME THE 2010 MID-TERMS. NOW THAT HE CAN'T BE THE ONLY BULLY, NOW THAT REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE HOUSE AND CAN PUSH BACK, SUDDENLY BARRY O'S CONCERNED ABOUT BULLYING. WOOPS! GOTTA GO. TIME FOR BARRY O TO MAKE NUMBER 2."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
"First, I'd like to welcome our witnesses for today's hearing on current and longer-term threats and challenges around the world. We are delighted to have James Clapper here for the first time as the Director of National Intelligence, along with the DIA Director General Ron Burgess," declared Chair Carl Levin this morning at the start of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. In his opening remarks, the Director of National Intelligence did nod to Iraq.
James Clapper: In Iraq, I think actually what has happened in Iraq has been a very interesting and encouraging evolution as they have gone -- they're going through a very difficult transition into a democracy. Uhm, they have too had demonstrations that have taken place widely throughout many cities in Iraq and personally was heartened by the uh excellent performance of the Iraqi security forces who reacted temperately to the professionally for the most part to these demonstrators.
However, it is equally true that Levin noted in his opening remarks, "We will want to learn from our witnesses their estimate of the prospects for democracy and for security for religious minorities in Iraq." Those topics were never touched on. In fact, Carl Levin was the only senator to ask of Iraq. Iraq exchange in full:
Chair Carl Levin: Can you give us an assessment of the vulnerability of the government of Iraq to the kinds of protest which have -- we've seen in other parts of that region? And has the government of Iraq cracked down on peaceful demonstration and could that lead to greater demonstrations?
James Clapper: Well, sir, I think the people in Iraq have the same aspirations as we're seeing throughout the MidEast, uh, the same four factors I indicated. And, uh, I think, uh, the word "crackdown" I guess -- that's somewhat of a loaded word. I guess they have curtailed -- controlled these demonstrations and, uh, I think the real test is the, uh, how responsive the, uh, Iraqi government can be for things like provisions of water and electricity to-to the people. And I think it's, uh, sort of basic fundamental, uh, needs, uh, and the government of Iraq, I think, understands that. The -- Prime Minister Maliki certainly does and that, uh, he's got to deliver. And that's going to be the test. And to the extent that, uh, they're not able to do that, then I think that, uh, frustration will fester more among the Iraqi people.
Chair Carl Levin: And just to tie that up, what's the Iranian influence in the Iraqi government, what's the extent of it?
James Clapper: Well sir it's, uh -- I think sometimes there is a tendancy to overstate that. I think, uh, clearly they're interested, uhm, they're going to try to influence, uh, things in Iraq in a manner that's, uh, supportive of their interests. Uh, I think, though, Prime Minister Maliki is, uh, his eyes are wide open here. He's got some background with the Iranians and, uh, I think they are very much aware of that. And certainly that's a great concern to others in the region.
Chair Carl Levin: So a limited effect? The Iranian influence?
James Clapper: Well I wouldn't -- I don't know what the right characterization is. It is a concern it's a factor and uh certainly the Iranians will try to exploit any openings they can whether in Iran -- Iraq or anywhere else in the region. And some measures -- some-some ways, uh, they would like to exploit the situation. But uh, I think that's going to be very problematic for them.
No one else bothered to ask. Ranking Member John McCain asked in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this week (see Tuesday's snapshot, it's noted in full -- and that was the only time Iraq came up in that hearing). Let's see we heard about Mexico being the new Columbia and we heard about the Balkans and we heard about -- Goodness, it was so bad maybe we should be grafeful no one felt the need to note the 'great' Grenada invasion of 1983.
While we were at the Senate Armed Services Committee, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was testifying in front of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations. Simmi Aujla (Politico) reports, "Clinton told House Republicans that cutting the agency's 2012 budget would also threaten U.S. progress in [typo error at Poliltico edited out here] Iraq and Afghanistan." I'm sorry, Hillary, we need to do that why? Those of us attending the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this morning heard the US "world wide threat assessment" and Iraq wasn't one. Russia was number one and China was number two. We know that because after Clapper made that surprising announcement in response to Senator Joe Manchin's questions, Chair Carl Levin quickly brought him back to that issue to make sure everyone had heard correctly. (Levin: "I was frankly quite surprised by your answer.") They had. Levin gave him a third attempt to self-correct noting how it will look -- especially in Russia -- when the headlines emerge (I doubt they will outside of Russia, there were not a lot of front page press types at the hearing) of "Russia Greatest Threat To The US." Clapper said he was sticking with his answers because, for greatest threats, only Russia and China would have the capability.
In fact "cyber threats" -- specifically "malicious software" -- were the focus of more grave words from Clapper than was Iraq. The US and England led the world into the Iraq War (Australia tagged along with John Howard as everyone's pudgy kid sister). But the United Kingdom's not fretting Iraq these days. From the March 1st snapshot, when Hillary was appearing befor the full House Committee on Foreign Affairs:
While Hillary was repeatedly saying that the billions to go into Iraq -- a third surge, was how she billed it -- were necessary for national security, a curious thing was happening across the Atlantic Ocean. Alex Stevenson (Politics) reports, "Britain has shaken up its international development budget by placing renewed emphasis on poor countries which directly affect the UK's national security. The move means 16 countries including Angola, Niger, Cameroon and Lesotho will no longer receive any funding from Britain. Neither will Russia, Iraq, Vietnam, Bosnia, Serbia and Burudni." That's very interesting. The Iraq War was started and led by the US and the UK. They spent the most money on the illegal war and sent the most bodies to fight it (and had the most foreign people die in Iraq). To sell the Iraq War in the US, Bully Boy Bush resorted to many lies including that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium from Africa. Tony Blair, then prime minister of England, had the ability to use chemical and/or biological weapons on England within 45 minutes. That's much quicker than an attack on the US and that's because England is physically closer to Iraq than is the US. So why is it that the UK argues today that they don't need to give Iraq anymore aid because it's not a threat to their own national security but the US -- White House and Hillary Clinton -- is arguing differently?
So can Hillary and the White House get honest about what's really going on? Clearly England is as tied to Iraq as the US and they're not calling it a threat to their national security and, turns out, based on Clapper's testimony, the US isn't either. Maybe we're back to what Ted Koppel, on NPR's Talk of the Nation Tuesday, speaking with Neal Conan declared?
Ted Koppel: We're there because of U.S. interests, and those U.S. interests can be summarized quite simply in one or two words: oil and natural gas. The stability of the Persian Gulf is of enormous national interest to the United State. No politician wants to send young men and women to die for oil. But the fact of the matter is that it is one of the politically most - no pun intended - inflammable issues. When the price of gasoline goes up, as it is going up right now, to $4 a gallon, if we were to leave before there is genuine stability in Iraq, if that area no longer had the oversight of American military, I think you could very easily see the price of oil go up to seven, eight, nine dollars a gallon. And the fact of the matter is then you would have all kinds of political yelling and screaming on Capitol Hill, all kinds of pressure being raised by the American public, which would not want to see that happen to its economy.
That was noted in the March 8th snapshot. So was this:
It would be "very unwise" to leave, he insisted and those who think the US is trying to help Iraq are looking at it wrong because "the prism that we're there for Iraq's interests? We're not. We're there because of US interests."
That quote is incorrect and should have included "[. . .]" and the first "we're" should have been "United States" -- my error, my apologies. What Koppel stated was, "the prism that we have been learned to - that we have been taught to accept over the last few years, and that is that the United States is in Iraq for Iraq's interests. We're not. We're there because of U.S. interests, and those U.S. interests can be summarized quite simply in one or two words: oil and natural gas. The stability of the Persian Gulf is of enormous national interest to the United States." My apologies for my error.
Is oil what Hillary's calling national security? If so, the White House needs to get honest about it. If not, they need to do a lot of explaining due to the fact that Iraq's not a national security issue for the US. It never was. It was never a threat to the US' safety. When Barack, Joe, Hillary, et al start insisting "national security" for the US staying in Iraq, they are LYING the exact same way Bush did when he claimed Iraq was a threat to the United States. If that's the standard they want to meet, then let all three of them be judged accordingly.
When Barack declared his candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, February 2007, Tom Eley (WSWS) broke down the realites of 'antiwar' Barry:
In the coded language of official American politics, a ''responsible end'' can mean only one thing: the total subjugation of Iraq, in one way or another, and the expropriation of its enormous oil wealth, delicately referred to by Obama as ''our interests in the region."
"Our interest in the region"? What are they? Barack's a War Hawk. And he's as dishonest as Bully Boy Bush. Back to Eley:
Obama endorses and recycles as his own all of Bush's "thirteen benchmarks" for "progress" in Iraq. Among them, Obama singles out the demand for "eliminating restrictions on US forces." In other words, the Pentagon should be given an even freer hand to drown the Iraqi resistance in blood. Obama also demands the Iraqi government reduce "the size and influence of the Militias" -- that is, fully confront the powerful Al Mahdi militia.
Benchmarks. As Eley notes, Barack was thrilled to grab onto Bush's benchmarks. In fact, he, Joe and Hillary -- all US senators at the time -- were calling for benchmarks. Where are his benchmarks?
Let's review a few of the targeted groups in Iraq.
* Christians and other religious minorities
* the LGBT community
* women
* orphans
* special needs persons
There are many more targeted populations. Barack is in the White House and desperately wants to be in it in 2013. Shouldn't he have something to add? The US tax payer is being asked to fork over billions of more dollars and for what? So Nouri and his thugs can torture gay men and suspected gay men? So they can seal these men's anuses with glue and cause them to die a very painful death?
We have seen zilch from this White House when it comes to Nouri's violations of basic human rights. Doubt it? Let's go over an exchange today one more time.
Chair Carl Levin: Can you give us an assessment of the vulnerability of the government of Iraq to the kinds of protest which have -- we've seen in other parts of that region? And has the government of Iraq cracked down on peaceful demonstration and could that lead to greater demonstrations?
James Clapper: Well, sir, I think the people in Iraq have the same aspirations as we're seeing throughout the MidEast, uh, the same four factors I indicated. And, uh, I think, uh, the word "crackdown" I guess -- that's somewhat of a loaded word. I guess they have curtailed -- controlled these demonstrations and, uh, I think the real test is the, uh, how responsive the, uh, Iraqi government can be for things like provisions of water and electricity to-to the people. And I think it's, uh, sort of basic fundamental, uh, needs, uh, and the government of Iraq, I think, understands that. The -- Prime Minister Maliki certainly does and that, uh, he's got to deliver. And that's going to be the test. And to the extent that, uh, they're not able to do that, then I think that, uh, frustration will fester more among the Iraqi people.
Clapper thinks the security forces showed moderation. Really? When they beat five journalists in Basra last Friday? When did they show restraint? When they injured protesters? When they killed them? When did they show restraint? When they beat up Baghdad journalists? When? And how the hell does this behavior earn the support of the US government?
It's an illegal war and the US has installed a thug. But if that doesn't matter to the current White House -- and it obviously doesn't since it was the current White House that ensured Nouri continued as prime minister -- how about this: The man considered an idiot (George W. Bush) laid down (under duress, true) benchmarks that Iraq was supposed to meet in order to continue to receive US tax payer money; however, someone supposedly smarter than George W. Bush doesn't even see the need for benchmarks today. Doesn't see the need while despite the targeting of religious minorities, of Iraq's LGBT community, of Iraqi women and on and on. That's very telling and what it's telling on the current White House isn't at all pretty.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri sings and dances before Parliament"
"Veterans repeatedly paying the costs of war"
"Support Bradley, not the network"
"Oh, Alicia Shepard, you're so stupid"
"Nuclear energy"
"food for thought"
"Vivan Schiller has been kicked out of the building"
"Roberta"
"The Event returns"
"A pleasant surprise"
"Back to you"
"Polling and more"
"THIS JUST IN! HE TURNS ON HIS CULT!"
"They gave him their heart and he gave them a pen"
