ON THE EVE OF 9-11, AMERICA SAYS A BIG F**K YOU TO CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.
THE PUBLIC SERVANT DECIDED WHAT AMERICA NEEDED FROM HIM WASN'T JOBS, A HEALTHY ECONOMY OR AN END TO WARS, JUST ANOTHER SCOLDING, JUST ANOTHER LECTURE.
DOES MISS PRISS BARACK EVER SHUT THE F**K UP?
AMERICA'S PRINCESS WANTS EVERYONE TO DO CHARITY OVER THE NEXT 2 WEEKS.
SOMEONE TELL THAT ASS THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT HIM, ALL WE SEE IS A MAN WHOSE FATHER NEVER MARRIED HIS MOTHER, ALREADY HAD A WIFE AND SKIPPED THE SCENE AS SOON AS HE WAS BORN. IN OTHER WORDS: TRASH.
TELL HIM TO SAVE THE SERMONS AND GET TO WORK ALL DAMN READY ON THE ECONOMY.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Starting with the Libyan War. Wednesday's snapshot included:
Monday on KPFA's Flashpoints, Kevin Pina spoke with journalist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and he was then trapped in his hotel with shooting going on all around. Kevin Pina noted, "We're asking all of our listeners to please call the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry at 1-800-267-8376 and demand that Canada contact the Transitional National Council of Libya and tell them to respect the right of international journalists especially Canadian journalist Mahdi Darius Naemroaya. Again that number to contact the Canadian Foreign Affairs Ministry at 1-800-267-8376." There are, at best, jokes being made about the safety of unembedded journalists and, at worst, threats being made. On Tuesday's show, Dennis Bernstein featured an interview Mahdi gave RT.
And Wednesday night came Richard Boudreaux's "After Six Days, Journalists Freed in Libya" (Wall St. Journal). That article didn't include Mahdi's name but he and others at the Rixos Hotel were moved to another one. Instead of reporting on that -- a minor story -- or on the actual suffering the Libyans are experiencing.
Instead, we have a bunch of pampered little children who are now showing their soiled diapers to the public. And if that seems harsh, so does playing the victim insted of the journalist. No Matthew Chance and Jomana Karadsheh, you are not the story, you are the reporters. And CNN was never going to allow you to be harmed. The most 'damage' you experienced was a bunch of bad pay-per-view TV (or, as Matthew Chance whines, "an old DVD of Point Break" -- oh the tragedy!). Your continued histionics make you sound less like saps and more like tools of imperialism really reaching to sell the notion of 'my hard times under Gaddafi!'
Matthew Chance is such an idiot. Explaining their five-day ordeal -- Gaddafi had assigned youths to watch the foreign journalists. When Gaddafi disappears (to wherever) the youths are unsure what to do. No surprise there, they were flunkies of the lowest level on the chain (meaning independent decisions were not among their strengths so when those issuing orders began to flee Tripoli, the youths were left stupified). That's why they were the ones selected to protect the journalists. So everyone's in a holding pattern for five days (the so-called ordeal). Listen to the 'torture' the 'journalists' experienced: "The hotel's generator, which kept the electricity supply going, ran out of fuel. Then the lights kept going off." Oh, my goodness. Who knew that a war zone wouldn't be the New York Palace in Manhattan!!!! You mean to tell me that going into a war zone means you might not have electriticy around the clock and the lights might keep "going off"? The tragedy. In the future, all wars should only take place at four-star resorts with adequate room service.
And personal trainers!!!!! 'Brave' Matthew confesses, "We survived in the end on crisps and chocolate. It sounds odd but I actually managed to put on weight during my five-day ordeal." No, it doesn't sound odd, it sounds pathetic. Grow the hell up and stop trying to pretend that you were in any danger. You clearly weren't. Young men on orders to protect you didn't know what to do when Gaddafi disappeared so they made you remain at the hotel, which was not invaded, which was not hit by any bombs, which was the safest place you could have been in Triopoli because everyone knew journalists were present. As Matthew tries to paint a picture of himself as the next Patty Hearst, the reality is that, as he lets slip throughout, they weren't in prisoners in their rooms, they roamed through the hotel day and night. They (the journalists) decided they'd all share a common space and not individaul rooms. They (the journalists) they'd check out the basement. On and on it goes, this is not a hostage situation.
At best Matthew Chance had an amusing tale to share. Instead, these pathetic 'reporters' are trying to equate their little adventure with the serious danger that the citizens of Libya have been put into with the Libyan War. And, Jomana, when you're in the Red Cross vehicle, it's no time to cry. And when you know a camera's present, stop the waterworks and try to act like a reporter. As the only woman -- or 'girl' -- pictured, your little waterworks do a disservice to female journalists all over the world. Though you were never in any danger up to that point, acting like a cry baby once you're being escorted by the Red Cross makes you look unfit to cover any story (but may distract from the fact that you've clearly put on many pounds since leaving Iraq to mis-cover the Libyan War -- which, please remember, found Jomana repeatedly lying to various reporters about where she was actually from and her ethnicity -- apparently forgetting that she had Tweeted repeatedly about her background in the past and anyone could do a quick computer search and expose her myriad of lies). Your constant cry for sympathy refuses to acknowledge your silence on NATO's bombing of Libyan TV which targeted and wounded and killed journalists. Refused to cover it, refused to cover Amnesty International calling out that attack. Now you want sympathy because you stuffed your fat ass with candy and chips for five days while watching movies and roaming through the halls of the hotel in some sort of pathetic homage to The Breakfast Club. Susan Glasser on today's Diane Rehm Show (NPR -- second hour) stated that the 'journalists' were without food and water. That is incorrect. It is flat out wrong. And she needs to stop saying that.
It is a posh hotel with an indoor swimming pool and much more. It had 24 hour room service. For less than a week, food deliveries stopped. New food being delivered stopped. However, canned food was plentiful. Though some cry babies may not like to eat it, US troops in Iraq eat far less fashionable foods as do the people of Iraq. The cry babies had tons of canned food, Matthew even notes that in his report on the 'ordeal.' They were obviously sugar cravers (looking at the photos of them) and they chose to instead gorge on potato chips and candy. They were never without water. Were they horribly parched to the point of dehydration at any point (they weren't),they could've drawn water from the large, indoor swimming pool. They were in more danger of dehydrating in the hotel's sauna than they were from lack of water. (The hotel had a gym, a health center, two on site restaurants. That's why the claim of running out of food is so laughable. Two food establishments and room service? Food deliveries could have stopped for a month and the remaining guests would not have starved.) They're in far more danger in their new hotel (under 'rebel' control) than they were at the Rixos Al Nasr.
Yesterday on KPFA's Flashpoints Radio, the first segment focused on the hotel issue.
Dennis Bernstein: We're going to take it to Canada now and be joined by Michel Chossudovsky -- he's with the Centre for Research on Globalization. He's been communicating with Mahdi throughout the day, Michel, are you with us?
Michel Chossudovsky: Yes, the situation is extremely serious because what happened is the independent journalists left the Rixos Hotel, that was yesterday. They were escorted to a new hotel under the auspices of the International Organization for Migration which is a UN body and the Red Cross and they were under the protection of these organizations and then they arrived in the new hotel, the Corinthia. The Corinthia turned out to be, in fact, a hotel which was under rebel control. They celebrated their 'liberation' so to speak, they had the promise to leave the following morning at twelve noon, 6 ED, in other words, six o'clock in the morning. And that was cancelled. And then what happened is you had rebel gunmen going around the rooms, using the pretext that they were going after the son of Gaddafi. And the whole place is, in fact, a new prison, and this time more seriously because the rebels control it and they are particularly the journalists who had the courage, determination and commitment to tell the truth about NATO atrocities. Particularly the bombing of the last few days which was devestating resulting in more than a thousand deaths and several thousand wounded.
Let's remember that the last time Mahdi spoke on Flashpoints was Monday and he made a point to stress what Libyans were experiencing and that he wanted out and felt bad for focusing on that when so many Libyans didn't have that option. The soiled diaper crowd never acknowledges the Libyan people, they just whine about the 'horrors' of Keanu Reeves DVDs and the food available in a war zone. Let's also remember the August 16th broadcast of Flashpoints included a segment with Dr. Khaled Al Bazelya is the head of Libyan Television's LEC division (their English language channel):
Kevin Pina spoke with him about the NATO attacks on Libyan TV for the last three weeks, resulting in the deaths of 3 journalists, with twelve more injured. "We are professional journalists. We have nothing to do with -- We are not politicians. We just transfer the news," Dr. Khaled Al Bazelya explained. "[. . .] We report what we see. We ask the International Journalist Association and Human Rights to look into this issue because journalists should be protected all over the world." Kevin noted the silence on the attacks.
Reviewing recent events in Iraq today, James M. Lindsay (Council on Foreign Relations) predicts, that whether the US departs or not, "don't be surprised when Iraq returns to the front pages later this year." While we wait to see if that forecast is correct, AP reports there will be a send-off ceremony this afternoon for approximately 160 Alabama Army National Guard members deploying to Iraq. This as the US and Iraqi governments continue to debate the details of extending the US stay in Iraq beyond December 31st. Dar Addustour reports that there is agreement on both sides regarding tanks, helicopters and armored vehicles but the number is still being debated (Iraq now wants no more than 8,000 troops while the US would like 20,000) and there is disagreement regarding immunity for US troops. From yesterday's snapshot:
Those who still need to believe in fairy tales should avoid the interview Josh Rogin (Foreign Policy) did with Iraq's Ambassador to the US Samir Sumaida'ie who states, "The principle that there will be some military presence [in Iraq beyond 2011] to help train Iraqi military and police has been largely agreed upon." This jibes with both what US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said on Friday and what Ali al-Dabbagh (Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson) said over the weekend. Sumaida'ie addes, "You'll see it when you see it. Americans want everything now or yesterday. We don't do it like this. We do it in our own sweet time." Rogin adds:
Sumaida'ie tried to explain what's really going on here. He said that there is a consensus among all political players, with the exceptions of the followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, that Iraq needs some American military support, particularly when it comes to training, past the end of this year. "However, the form that this will take and the legal details are still being debated," he said.
He said the debate over the number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq has ranged between 8,000 and 20,000, and that they would be non-combat forces limited to the training of Iraqi military and police forces.
In Iraq, whatever troop draw downs have occurred have been coupled with increases in private military contractors. Replacing American troops with government contracted for-profit troops (we used to call these mercenaries) does not mean we're actually getting out of Iraq.
The issue of extending US troops on the ground in Iraq beyond 2011 was addressed on WBEZ's Worldview when Jerome McDonnell spoke with the RAND Corporation and Pepperdine University's Joseph Kechichian today. The discussion started with McDonnell noting that when they spoke about the Iraq War in 2003, Kechichian had predicted it would last a decade and McDonnell was dubious but, here it is, nearly nine years later. Excerpt.
Joseph Kechichian: During WWII and the Korean War, if we remember, we put hundreds of thousands of soldiers in both theaters. Eventually we would bring the vast majority back to the United States leaving behind core forces in both European theater and South Korea, obviously, under the demilitarized zone. In Iraq, the same situation applies as well. We've put, at one point, over a hundred and fifty thousand soldiers plus 150,000 mercenaries that were not technically soldiers but nevertheless they were Americans for the most part. So we had about 300,000 people there. We're down now to 48,000 or so. We're pulling most of the combat troops out. But we're going to leave behind -- as you said, in a new security forces agreement with the Iraqis -- a new SOFA, if you'd like, as it is known in its acronym -- between 10,000 and 20,000 soldiers for a very long time. I think that an accord will be signed between the two governments very soon. And we're going to have a longterm presence in Iraq for decades to come --
Jerome McDonnell: Now there are folks who think that's not -- There are folks who think that's not a great idea and that, really, we'd be doing better off just going to zero because of what a screwed up mess it is but there are a lot of people in Washington who want to stay there because of Iran and things.
Joseph Kechichian: Well in addition to Iran, Iran obviously is a very serious issue for us in the region for the foreseeable future but I think that there are -- I don't know the merits of leaving any soldier behind are worth contemplating at this point. Simply stated, we have invested way too much in Iraq right now. A pullout, a complete pullout, without having any kind of residue left there will essentially mean one thing and only one thing: That the war for Iraq was for naught and that we made a mistake.
It was a mistake, most illegal wars are (they're also crimes, which is why they're called "illegal wars"). Learning to admit that publicly and to speak it would go a long way in preventing future illegal wars. Or at least make the War Hawks and their media whores have to work a little harder -- or did no one else hear echoes of "He gassed his own people!" of Saddam Hussein and "using foreign mercenaries against his own people" about Muammar Gaddafi? (Here for a New York Times report by David D. Kirkpatrick and Rod Nordland going over that false assertion and others.)
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Rockets, bombs, extended stay and foreign workers"
"Mars Attacks Iraq"
"Bell Pepper Soup in the Kitchen"
"Tired"
"4 men, 2 women"
"overturn it"
"Those with dual citizenships should not be donating"
"Good for Gene Simmons"
"Lynne"
"Role Models"
"The Libyan War"
"Idiot of the week"
"Bill Keller's latest embarrassment"
"THIS JUST IN! 10 CENTS A DANCE!"
