BULLY BOY
PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID
TABLE
ALREADY THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION APPEARS TO BE OVERFLOWING WITH FOREIGN CAMPAIGN DONATIONS -- SUCH DONATIONS WOULD BE ILLEGAL. BUT IT GETS WORSE.
APPARENTLY HAILING FROM PATHETIC COUNTRIES, OLIVER BURKEMAN AND FAILED WRITER BUT CONSORT OF FRENCH PRESIDENT BERNARD-HENRI LEVY REFUSE TO FOCUS ON THEIR OWN RESPECTIVE COUNTRIES BUT INSTEAD OBSESSS OVER A U.S. ELECTION AS THEY EXPRESS THEIR LOVE FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.
THESE ARE NOT REPORTERS, THESE ARE FOREIGNERS ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION AND THEY NEED TO BUTT THE HELL OUT.
IF THEY'RE SO ASHAMED OF THEIR OWN COUNTRIES -- ENGLAND AND FRANCE -- THERE'S A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP IN THE U.S. AND THEY SHOULD EXPLORE IT. BUT AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN FOREIGNERS, THEY NEED FOCUS ON THEIR OWN ELECTIONS AND STOP TRYING TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Yesterday we noted Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate,
delivered a foreign relations speech. Today US President Barack Obama
did. If you're a dope -- like Michael A. Memoli of the Los Angeles Times
-- you just type it up. I'm sorry, is it only Republicans that have to
be fact checked? Barack's been president for nearly four years, at
what point does he stop being coddled?
And if
you can figure out the lunatic ravings of his campaign site, more power
to you. I couldn't. Where's the speech? I called a friend with the
campaign and he told me, "Why it's at the White House."
At the White House. How many times is this adminitsration going to break the Hatch Act?
Go to the White House's Speeches and Remarks page and you'll find the following:
Speeches and Remarks
- October 09, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- San Francisco, CA
- October 09, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
- October 08, 2012
Remarks by the President at the Dedication of the Cesar Chavez National Monument, Keene, CA
- October 08, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
- October 08, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event
- October 06, 2012
Weekly Address: Congress Should Keep America Moving Forward
- October 05, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Cleveland, OH
- October 05, 2012
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event -- Fairfax, VA
- October 04, 2012
Remarks by the President at Campaign Event in Madison, WI
The
White House is not a campaign site. I went over the legalities with
Team Barack when they had their Twitter Feed issues (they were breaking
the Hatch Act, they quickly changed their policies to be in compliance
with the Hatch Act). I don't feel like being nice today. Team Barack
has a ton of lawyers, at least one of them should know the damn law.
Campaign event speeches belong at the campaign website. They are not
official White House business. They cannot be posted at the White
House. This is no different than what got Al Gore in trouble -- the
phone calls -- only now we're talking online.
If
you're not grasping it, White House staff posts to the White House
web. Right away, you've got a Hatch Act issue if White House staff is
posting campaign event material to the White House website. I cannot
believe how stupid Team Barack is. And I'll put my hand on the Bible
and say "stupid" and not "criminal." It took two hours to explain the
basics of how their Twitter feed was in violation of the Hatch Act. I
don't have that kind of time, especially for a candidate I'm not
campaigning for, donating to, or voting for. I expect the President of
the United States to comply with the law. That is not an outlandish
expectation. If Team Obama's attorneys are this stupid, that not only
suggests the need for new attorneys, it goes to the man they're working
for.
White House staff has now posted campaign
event material to a government website. Forget that it's the White
House, for a moment, to a government website. They are not in
compliance with the Hatch Act and if we grown ups in the press -- which
we so obviously do not (excepting the few like Jake Tapper) -- they'd be
running with this story. We'd have headlines "Potential Hatch Act
Violation by White House" or "Another Potential Hatch Act Violation by
White House." But we have meek little general studies majors who never
learned one damn thing about one damn thing and we're all victimized by their stupidity.
And
today's speech where he remembers Iraq all the sudden? It's got be the
one damn speech they didn't break the Hatch Act by posting.
We
can't get the text of the speech (supposedly it'll be faxed to me
shortly, I don't have the time to wait) so we have to depend upon the
accuracy of a dunce, a village idiot, by the name of Michael Memoli.
Fate has saved us. The fax just came in.
Ohio State University in Columbus was where Barack spoke this evening.
On Iraq:
I
want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to
put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our
schools all across America. And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to
end the war in Iraq. I disagree. I think bringing out troops home to
their families was the right thing to do. If he'd gotten his way, those
troops would still be there. In a speech yesterday, he doubled down on
that belief. He said ending that war was a mistake. After nine years
of war, more than $1 trillion in spending, extraordinary sacrficies by
our men and women in uniform and their families, he said we should still
have troops on the ground in Iraq. Ohio, you can't turn a page on the
failed policies of the past if you're promising to repeat them. We
cannot afford to go back to a foreign policy that gets us into wars
with no plan to end them.
That's
Barack on Iraq in Ohio today. It was not a major foreign policy
speech. It was actually very disappointing to read because there was no
effort to say much of anything. Did Barack think his college audience
couldn't handle much more than simplistic statements. I'm not talking
him presenting a new map for foreign relations, I'm talking about some
uplifting phrases. This is the dullest speech in the world. Maybe
attorneys aren't Team Obama's only problem?
Reading Michael A. Memoli's nonsense,
it becomes clear that Barack can say whatever he wants and will not be
fact checked. So let's do the work that the Los Angeles Times should
have expected Memoli to do.
Barack:
I want to use the money we're saving from ending the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and I want to use that to pay down our deficit, but also to
put people back to work rebuilding our roads and bridges and our
schools all across America.
I would applaud you but you stated that repeatedly in your campaign speeches in 2008 -- and in your victory speech on election night (link is NPR, text and audio).
So you had four years and the US roads and bridges remain in need of
repair. You refused to do a public works project, the way FDR did to
provide jobs, but we're supposed to believe you that this time you
really, really mean it.
Barack: And Governor Romney said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq.
Barack keeps repeating that lie. FactCheck.org from September 7, 2012:
Making
the case that Romney lacks foreign policy chops, Obama twisted Romney's
words, claiming, "My opponent said it was 'tragic' to end the war in
Iraq."
But that's not quite what Romney
said. He was speaking of the speed with which Obama was withdrawing
troops, not to ending the war in general.
During
a veterans roundtable in South Carolina on Nov. 11, 2011, Romney
criticized Obama's plan to remove troops from Iraq by the end of that
year. Here's the fuller context of his comments, as reported by the New York Times:
Romney, Nov. 11, 2011: It is my view that the withdrawal of all of our troops from Iraq by the end of this year is an enormous mistake, and failing by the Obama administration. The precipitous withdrawal is unfortunate — it's more than unfortunate, I think it's tragic. It puts at risk many of the victories that were hard won by the men and women who served there.
A month earlier, when Obama formally announced the withdrawal of tens of thousands of troops from Iraq by year's end, Romney released a similar statement:
Romney, Oct. 21, 2011: President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.
In December, Romney argued
that Obama "has pulled our troops out in a precipitous way" and that he
ought to have left a residual force of "10-, 20-, 30-thousand
personnel there to help transition to the Iraqi's own military
capabilities."
Criticizing the
"precipitous" pace of withdrawal and the president's failure to leave a
residual force in Iraq is a far cry from calling the end of the war in
Iraq "tragic."
"Obama twisted Romney's words" -- yes and continues to do so after being called out on it which makes it a lie.
Barack: I disagree. I think bringing out troops home to their families was the right thing to do.
If
you had actually done that, Barack. I could probably vote in this
presidential election and could vote for you. If you had done that, if
you had brought the troops home from Iraq. I probably could ignore your
assaults on whistle blowers, find some way to justify your persecution
of Bradley Manning and other things. Because Iraq really matters to
me. So I could probably find a way to lie to myself, write you a big
check, go out and campaign for you and vote for you. I might hold my
nose, but I probably could have if you'd just done that.
But
you didn't bring US troops home. Some of them, over 15,000, you moved
across the Iraqi border into Kuwait. And there's no plans to bring that
number down to zero. In fact, June 19, 2012, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee released [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council."
Page 12:
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.
The report
goes on to recommend that the troops stay there for years. (Individuals
would rotate out but approximately 13,000 US troops would be stationed
in Kuwait for years.)
In
addition, Special Ops remained in Iraq. They never left. 'Trainers'
remained in Iraq (also US military). And not only did Special Ops
remain but Barack just sent more Special Ops into Iraq. Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th,
"At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a
unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq
to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Barack: If he'd gotten his way, those troops would still be there.
Barack, "these troops" still are there. And if Barack had gotten his way, even more would be there. As Yaroslav Trofimov and Nathan Hodge (Wall St. Journal) remind
today, "In Iraq, Washington's ability to influence the government in
Baghdad was greatly diminished by December's pullout of American forces,
ordered by President Barack Obama after Baghdad refused to accept the
U.S. demand that remaining U.S. troops be immune from Iraqi
jurisdiction." I would love to hear Senator John McCain respond to
this speech by Barack. In November of last year, we defended Barack
here from McCain's charge that Barack was misleading (lying) and
intended to tank negotiations between the US and Iraq for US troops to
remain in Iraq in large numbers. And we even brought it up in the 2011 year-in-review:
Another
reason offered for the refusal by the Iraqis to extend the SOFA or come
to a new agreement came from US Senator John McCain. McAin's hypothesis
is that Barack purposely tanked the talks (see the November 15th Iraq snapshot and Kat's report on the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing).
Were that true (I personally don't buy that proposal), then the
administration should be paraded before Congress due to the fact that,
when the country was in three overseas wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and
Libya), plus drone attacks of Pakistan and in an ever increasing
economic mess, for Barack to have wasted some of the administration's
most valuable players on negotiations that were intended to fail would
be criminal negligence. Far more likely is that, as with his attempts to
land the 2016 Olympics (for Chicago) which included traveling all the way to Denmark only to see the Committee rebuff him and select Rio instead. Barack's embarrassing failure was lampooned in Isaiah's 2009 "Dream Team Take Two" which found the players (Barack, Michelle, Oprah and Valerie Jarrett) attempting to bring the Mary Kay Convention to Chicago.
I
think McCain would look at that single sentence ("If he'd gotten his
way, those troops would still be there.") and say that Barack can't
have it both ways -- either he would have kept troops there but couldn't
get a treaty passed or else he intentionally tanked a treaty because he
didn't want troops there.
In addition, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th,
"Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions." Troops would still be there? But it's the White
House right now that's negotiating to send more troops back into Iraq.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq today: Continued violence, cholera, etc."
"Nouri gets closer to Russia and gets a dig in at t..."
"Barack refuses to honor Big Bird's request"
"Who I may vote for"
"Joseph Kishore and WSWS won't tell the truth"
"revenge and divorce"
"The Libya story/scandal"
"The liars get exposed (Benghazi-gate)"
"Revolution"
"She lost me"
"Lying about Libya for re-election"
"Fringe, the polls, Libya"
"THIS JUST IN! GAIL COLLINS EXPLAINED!"
"Answer: Because Gail Collins is butt ugly"