IT'S NOT A GOOD TIME TO BE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O. THE BOSTON GLOBE CALLS OUT HIS LIES ABOUT MITT ROMNEY'S RECORD AS GOVERNOR. BOTH CNN AND ABC NOTE THAT HE ATTACKED ROMNEY IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET PEOPLE TO STOP TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER JOBS REPORT WITH RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT.
AND WHAT'S REALLY EMERGING IS WHAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE PICKED UP ON IN 2008: BARRY O ISN'T MUCH OF A MAN. HE'S A BITCH. HE'S A LITTLE BITCH GOING AROUND ACTING BITCHY. HE MAKES ALL THESE PERSONAL ATTACKS AND THEN WHINES IF ANYONE QUESTIONS THE FACT THAT HE ASSOCIATED WITH CRIMINALS AND WACKOS. HE'S A LITTLE BITCH WHO CLAWS AND SCRATCHES AND THEN WHINES THAT OTHERS AREN'T PLAYING FAIR.
NO WONDER ROMNEY BEAT HIM IN FUNDRAISING LAST MONTH.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
I'd wrongly thought Tom Hayden would be wearing the dunce cap in today's snapshot. Though he made a fool of himself, ABC News surpassed him. Matt Negrin may have written the article (I was told he did but only by one friend at ABC News so we'll say "may have"). Whomever wrote it needs to be tested for drugs and have their resume checked. The piece is entitled, "The Troops in Iraq: Sent Home, as Promised."
You really have to wonder about these whores for government who write this crap with no concern for the families of the Marines or Special-Ops and others still in Iraq. You really have to wonder. And today it's not just me explaining that's b.s. and the various people who e-mail the public e-mail account about their loved ones still being in Iraq.
No. Today it's Rita Cook (Waxahachie Daily Light) reporting on Tim Vansyckle just returning home to Ovilla, Texas from Iraq and the joy his parents Bill and Martha Vansyckle has this weekend when they and other "family and friends gathered to cut the [yellow] ribbon on a tree that Bill says has grown during the year his son has been serving his country overseas." From Cook's report:
This past year was his second time in Iraq and he explains that his brigade was always there, despite the President's announcement the war in Iraq was over and U.S. troops would be returning home.
"There were a lot of reports that every soldier left or that the last of 1st Cavalry had left," he says. "It was pretty weird seeing stories about us being home for good when we were literally walking around Iraq."
It is beyond "whorish" to lie the way the media repeatedly has, it is trashy and every other term to repeatedly say "all US troops came home." No, they damn well didn't. And even now, US troops are in Iraq.
Matt Negrin or whatever stupid moron ABC was idiot enough to hire concludes their fact-free fantasy with this:
In December, the last troops left, officially ending the American military presence in Iraq. However, while most of the troops returned to the United States in time for Christmas as Obama promised, about 4,000 troops in a brigade were reassigned to nearby Kuwait to complete a tour involving security and training, Stars and Stripes reported.
Did they report that, Moron, did they?
Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council." On page v., Senator John Kerry, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, notes, "Home to more than half of the world's oil reserves and over a third of its natural gas, the stability of the Persian Gulf is critical to the global economy." Chair John Kerry has stated of the report, "The Gulf Region is strategically important to the United States economically, politically, and for security reasons. This is a period of historic, but turbulent change in the Middle East. We need to be clear-eyed about what these interests are and how best to promote them. This report provides a thoughtful set of recommendations designed to do exactly that."
The report may well map out that for many. That's not what stood out to me. The takeaway for me is US troops remain in the region, right next to Iraq in Kuwait and the Committee's recommendation is that they remain present. (For those who don't want to read the report in full or operating systems are not PDF friendly, click here for the Committee's one page explanation of the report.)
[. . .]
Further into the report, we get the point AP' was emphasizing this morning. AP: "The United States is planning a significant military presence of 13,500 troops in Kuwait to give it the flexibility to respond to sudden conflicts in the region as Iraq adjusts to the withdrawal of American combat forces and the world nervously eyes Iran, according to a congressional report." Page nine of the report:
A residual American military presence in the Gulf and increased burden-sharing with GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] states are fundamental components of such a framework. However, the United States must also carefully shape its military footprint to protect the free-flow of critical natural resources and promote regional stability while not creating a popular backlash.
Kuwait is especially keen to maintain a significant U.S. military presence. In fact, the Kuwaiti public perception of the United States is more positive than any other Gulf country, dating back to the U.S.-led liberation of Kuwait in 1991. Kuwait paid over $16 billion to compensate coalition efforts for costs incurred during Desert Shield and Desert Storm and $350 million for Operation Southern Watch. In 2004, the Bush Administration designated Kuwait a major non-NATO ally.
* U.S. Military Presence: A U.S.-Kuwaiti defense agreement signed in 1991 and extended in 2001 provides a framework that guards the legal rights of American troops and promotes military cooperation. When U.S. troops departed Iraq at the end of 2011, Kuwait welcomed a more enduring American footprint. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 U.S. forces in Kuwait, but the number is likely to decrease to 13,500. Kuwaiti bases such as Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Field, and Camp Buehring offer the United States major staging hubs, training rages, and logistical support for regional operations. U.S. forces also operate Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait, which are vital to theater missile defense.
Get it? ABC News doesn't seem to. And Kuwait's not the only US military staging area surrounding Iraq. ABC News has turned in campaigning, they haven't turned in reporting. That 'report' is misleading at best and the network should be embarrassed to have posted it regardless of who wrote it. I don't know what's more shocking, that someone was paid to write that garbage or that a professional news outlet posted it.
Equally stupid is Roberty Dreyfuss at The Nation but, then, he has an excuse -- he spent the bulk of his professional career writing for Lyndon LaRouche. Showing just how worthless that 'training' is, Dreyfuss churns out an article with its own problems. He recommends Susan Crabtree's Washington Times article and he quotes from it, "June was Iraq's second-deadliest month since U.S. troops pulled out Dec. 18, 2011 . . ."
Uh, LaRouche Zombie, what was Iraq's deadliest month?
The United Nations counts over 400 dead in the month of June. Are you aware of that? Apparently not and aren't we all lucky that you and The Nation decided to advertise your disinterest in All Things Iraq yet again. He agrees that violence is a problem and that there's a political crisis. This is his conclusion:
And here's what the Obama administration ought to do about violence in Iraq: Nothing.
You have to marvel over the intellectual decay at The Nation.
The Obama administration ought to do nothing?
I guess in LaRouche Land there is only dualities and no complexities. I thought The Nation -- the country's oldest opinion journal -- had a little bit more on the ball than that.
What should the administration do? There are a host of things they should immediately be doing. We'll throw out two.
1) The F-16 deal is off. The Iraqi press in the last two weeks has been reporting that Nouri actually wants more F-16s than the deal calls for. And, of course, they've also reported that US Vice President Joe Biden called him and told him that the ExxonMobil deal needs to go through or the F-16 deal is off.
If the US government can threaten to pull the F-16 deal to help our a multi-national corporation, it can damn well use it as leverage with regards to the ongoing political crisis.
2) Then there is the UN issue of Chapter VII. Though little reported in the US press, Chapter VII is a big deal in Iraq and each year they plead with the UN to remove them from it. Each year they just know it will happen but it hasn't so far. The US government can ensure that it doesn't and should be doing that right now.
There are a host of things that the US government can do to influence the political crisis and the violence. And the two are related, which Dreyfuss probably doesn't grasp either. The US could pressure Nouri to follow the Erbil Agreement -- that alone would immediately effect life in Iraq.
How screwed up is The Nation magazine today that they publish an article that claims the US should do nothing? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, they've never once written a single article during any of the waves of attacks on Iraq's LGBT community. But the reality is that there a ton of things the US government can do besides declare war or send soldiers. How awful that The Nation now sees the US government's only power as whether or not to declare war -- how awful and how telling.
- Iraq snapshot
- Nouri's State of Law slow on reform, quick on atta...
- Veterans parades and training
- Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "I Want Four Mo...
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: If he wore a hoodie would you care abou...
- TV: Bill Moyers' same tired act
- Guys and Gals, Rahm's Gone
- Fire Kris Welch
- Radio moment of the week
- Jim's World or How I almost ended Third
- It's the same old song
- Green Party candidate qualifies for matching funds...
- Free Lynne Stewart! (Workers World)