Saturday, September 29, 2012

THIS JUST IN! DESPERATION HOUR!

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

WHEN CAMPAIGNS GO BITCHY AND CANDIDATES GO TWITCHY, IT'S DESPERATION HOUR.

TODAY IN FLORIDA, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN TOSSED ASIDE HIS KINDLY UNCLE-PROFESSOR IMAGE TO GO FULL ON BITCHY.  HE SAID REPUBLICANS PRETENDED TO "BLEED OVER THE NATIONAL DEBT" AND YOU WERE LEFT WONDERING WHEN UNCLE JOE BECAME A GARDEN VARIETY DRAG QUEEN TRYING TO BREAK OUT A BETTE DAVIS IMITATION?


IF BIDEN WAS GRABBING BITCHY BETTE, THAT ONLY LEFT CRAZY JOAN CRAWFORD UP FOR CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O TO GRAB.

WITH LESS BROAD SHOULDERS, BARRY O FACED THE NATION TODAY IN HIS VIDEO ADDRESS ATTEMPTING TO COME OFF LIKE JOAN CRAWFORD FACING DOWN THE PEPSI SHARE HOLDERS AND SNARLING THAT THE ECONOMY AND RESPONSIBLE HOME OWNERS WERE TANKED BY "THE IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIONS OF OTHERS."

THE BITCH WHO SAVED BIG AUTO AND THE BANKS BUT DID NOTHING FOR THOSE FAMILIES ACROSS THE NATION FACING FORECLOSURES JUST GAVE A SPEECH WHERE HE BLAMED THEM FOR THE FRAUD THAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE BY THE BANKS. 

WHEN CAMPAIGNS GO BITCHY AND CANDIDATES GO TWITCHY, IT'S DESPERATION HOUR.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


 
Iraq War veteran Brian Kinsella is among many who enjoy motorcycles (he rides a Harley Davidson Street Glide).  Today, at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, he begins a two-week, 5,000 Ride For Life as part of the mission of Stop Soldier Suicide:

During the journey, Kinsella will talk with soldiers, veterans, and senior military leaders at 12 military installations while spreading a word about military suicide prevention and existing civilian sources of aid for US troops.
 

Click here to see a map of the route at the Stop Solider Suicide website.  Online, you can follow the journey via the Ride For Life Twitter page, the Stop Soldier Suicide Twitter page and via the Stop Soldier Suicide Facebook page as well as the Stop Soldier Suicide blogAlyssa Newcomb (ABC News) reports Brian Kinsella was the platoon leader in 2006 when an 18-year-old soldier in his platoon attempted to take her own life.  He tells Newcomb, "She moved into a male dominated unit, trying to figure out what the hell she was doing to go to war.  We as a command could have done more to make sure this person had better acclimated to our unit."  Julie La Roche (Business Insider) explains:
 
During the two-week ride, Kinsella will make stops at 12 military installations where he plans to promote SSS's mission, raise awareness about soldier suicide and form partnerships. 
He's also encouraging people to join him on different lengths of the ride to show their support.
"Our desire is for people to join the ride as I pass through towns. It will really show how much people care and support our brave veterans," Kinsella said over coffee last week on September 11th in the Flatiron District. 
 
The Ride For Life comes as the suicide rate is such that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has rightly termed it a crisis. July 25th, he appeared before the House Veterans Affairs Committee. From that day's snapshot:
 

US House Rep Mike Michaud:  Quick question, and I want to read from a Veterans Service Organization letter that they actually sent to Senator [Jim] Webb just last week.  And just part of it says, "The only branch of the military to show a marked improvement decreasing the number of persons taking their own life is the United States Marines.  They should also be praised for their active leadership from the very top in addressing the problem and implementing the solutions.  The remaining services have yet to be motivated to  take any substanative action. "  Secretary Panetta, I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan several times and I've looked the generals in the eye and I've asked them what are they doing personally to help the stigmatized TBI, PTSD?  And the second question is: Do they need any help?  I get the same answer over there as I do over here in DC: 'Everything's okay.  We've got all the resources we need.  We don't need any help.'  But the interesting thing is someone much lesser ranked came up to me, after I asked the general that question, outside and said, "We need a lot more help."  And he suggested  that I talk to the clergy to find out what they are seeing happening.  And I did that trip and every trip since then.  And I'm finding that our service members are not getting the help that they need.  And my question, particularly after looking at this letter that was sent to Senator Webb, it appears the Marines are doing a good job so why is it so different between the Marines, the Army and other branches?  And can you address that?
 

 
Secretary Leon Panetta: You know -- Obviously, there's no silver bullet here.  I wish there were to try to deal with suicide prevention.  We-we have a new suicide prevention office that's trying to look at programs  to try to address this terrible epedemic. I  mean, we are looking.  If you look at just the numbers, recent total are you've got about 104  confirmed and 102 pending investigation in 2012.  The total of this is high, almost 206.  That's nearly one a day.  That is an epedemic.  Something is wrong.  Part of this is people are inhibited because they don't want to get the care that they probably need. So that's part of the problem, trying to get the help that's necessary.  Two, to give them access to the kind of care that they need.  But three -- and, again, I stress this because I see this in a number of other areas, dealing with good discipline and good order and, uh, trying to make sure that our troops are responding to the challenges -- it is the leadership in the field.  It's the platoon commander.  It's the platoon sergeant.  It's the company commander. It's the company sergeant.  The ability to look at their people, to see these problems.  To get ahead of it and to be able to ensure that when you spot the problems, you're moving that individual to the kind of-of assistance that they need in order to prevent it.  The Marines stay in close touch with their people.  That's probably one of the reasons that the Marines are doing a good job.  But what we're stressing in the other services is to try to develop that-that training of the command.  So that they two are able to respond to these kinds of challenges. 
 
 
 
Yesterday the Defense Dept released the latest suicide data: "During August, among active-duty soldiers, there were 16 potential suicides:  three have been confirmed as suicides and 13 remain under investigation.  For July, the Army reported 26 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers: 13 have been confirmed as suicides and 13 remain under investigation.  For 2012, there have been 131 potential active-duty suicides:  80 have been confirmed as suicides and 51 remain under investigation.  Active-duty suicide number for 2011: 165 confirmed as suicides and no cases under investigation.  During August, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were nine potential suicides (five Army National Guard and four Army Reserve):  none have been confirmed as suicide and nine remain under investigation.  For July, among that same group, the Army reported 12 potential suicides (nine Army National Guard and three Army Reserve); four have been confirmed as suicides and eight remain under investigation.  For 2012, there have been 80 potential not on active-duty suicides (49 Army National Guard and 31 Army Reserve):  59 have been confirmed as suicides and 21 remain under investigation.  Not on active-duty suicide numbers for 2011:  118 (82 Army National Guard and 36 Army Reserve) confirmed as suicides and no cases under investigation."  The Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-TALK, 1-800-273-8255.  (FYI, Cell phones have different lettering than landlines. That's a fact that seems to escape people giving out letters for phone numbers currently.)
  
Moving from government department to another, today the US State Dept released the following:
 
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 28, 2012
The Secretary of State has decided, consistent with the law, to revoke the designation of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Immigration and Nationality Act and to delist the MEK as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under Executive Order 13224. These actions are effective today. Property and interests in property in the United States or within the possession or control of U.S. persons will no longer be blocked, and U.S. entities may engage in transactions with the MEK without obtaining a license. These actions will be published in the Federal Register.
With today's actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK's past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members.
The Secretary's decision today took into account the MEK's public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.
The United States has consistently maintained a humanitarian interest in seeking the safe, secure, and humane resolution of the situation at Camp Ashraf, as well as in supporting the United Nations-led efforts to relocate eligible former Ashraf residents outside of Iraq.
 
 
Some would be seers have insisted all week that the move was a mistake and that the MEK deserved to be labeled terrorists (in 1997 by the Clinton administration) yet they never found an argument to make on behalf of the Camp Ashraf residents.  If Glen Glen and the other Three Faces of Eve are unhappy with the way things were headed, they should have factored in that there was a legal obligation to the Camp Ashraf residents on the part of the US government and then they should have come up with a suggestion of how to honor that obligation without taking the MEK off the list.  As Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed earlier this year that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." 
 
Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) observes, "The Iranian government condemned the decision and blamed the group for an incident in which a senior Iranian diplomat in New York for the U.N. General Assembly was assaulted on the street."  CNN notes today that "since 2004 the United States has considered the group, which has lived for more than 25 years at a refugee camp in Iraq, 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So if the Three Faces of Eve had objections to changing the status of the MEK, they should have made time to propose how to address the issues of the Camp Ashraf residents.  It's not as though, for example, Antiwar.com hasn't spent years savaging the MEK.  If they had a way to address the legal obligations to Camp Ashraf, they should have proposed it.







Friday, September 28, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE POSER POSES BADLY!


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

AS MORE INFORMATION EMERGES ON THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CONSULATE IN LIBYA, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O STANDS ACCUSED OF A COVER UP.

THE WHITE HOUSE COVERED UP AN AL QAEDA ATTACK ON THE 11TH ANNIVERSARY OF 9-11 AND DID SO APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO MAKE BARRY O APPEAR CAPABLE AND STRONG.  HOWEVER, THE REALITY IS:


U.S. intelligence officials knew less than a day after the bloody attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that the perpetrators were terrorists who are alleged members of an al-Qaeda offshoot, but President Barack Obama and his minions took about a week to admit it, according to counterterrorism experts who spoke to the Law Enforcement Examiner.
“Watching U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice say on the Sunday news shows that the Obama administration deduced that the strike was a spontaneous event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film was at once painful and despicable,” said former NYPD detective Sid Franes, who has worked on that police department’s terror task force.
Rice went as far as calling the Benghazi attack a copy-cat act mirroring the Egyptian protest.
“While everyone in the news media and in government service are tiptoeing around the obvious, I’m going to say it straight out: Obama and his so-called national security team are a pack of liars and frauds,” said the angry former New York City cop.


BARRY O SPENT THE WEEK  ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL WHILE MANY OF THE WORLD LEADERS WERE MEETING AT THE UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS IN N.Y.C.

BARRY O LATER TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT IT WASN'T IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO BE FACE-TO-FACE WITH OTHER WORLD LEADERS, "I'M EYE CANDY.  I'M TO BE LOOKED AT, NOT INTERACTED WITH.  SHOULD I TAKE OFF MY SHIRT AGAIN?"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Starting in the US, Mark Halperin (Time magazine -- link is video and text) notes US President Barack Obama's latest re-election ad today.  As usual, Barack praised himself for Iraq.   It's rare that Barack doesn't mention Iraq.  September 8th found him delivering a weekly address and stating, "We've ended the war in Iraq and brought our troops home."  Iraq's in shambles, at best, and yet Barack can't stop mentioning it in speeches and the press can't stop whoring for him -- like Scott Horsley who declared at the start of the month on Morning Edition (NPR), "There are no more US troops in Iraq."  The same media that wants to fact check Mitt Romney willingly lies for Barack.  And it works on a number of people, these lies.
Yesterday afternoon,  Joe Hamilton explains to the Muskegon Chronicle editors why he's supporting Barack, "But I'd maintain that if the only thing that Barack Obama accomplished in foreign policy during his entire time in office was the end of U.S. military involvement in Iraq, then that alone makes his presidency significant, historic and well worth voting for.  Yesterday  Jack Burgess (Ironton Tribune) explained, "He's brought the troops home from Iraq on schedule, in spite of pressures from some in the military and Republicans such as Sen. John McCain, his opponent in 2008, who said he didn't care if our troops remained there for 100 years."  Last week, Tonja Adams insisted to the Wisconsin State Journal, "Thankfully, President Barack Obama brought our troops home from Iraq and will bring more home from Afghanistan in 2014."
People believe it.  It was never true.  Yes, 15,000 US troops remain in Kuwait right there on the border of Iraq and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee wants them there for years but will allow them to drop to 13,000 in number -- see their  [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council" released last June and pay attention to this:
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.
In addition, last December, for NBC's Rock Center with Brian Williams, Ted Koppel addressed the US presence after what Barack called a "withdrawal" but the Defense Dept called a "drawdown" (the terms have different meanings):

MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?


AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.
The media just doesn't like that truth.  They prefer the lie that everyone came home. 
And now they prefer not to talk about what's taking place between Iraq and the United States right now: Discussions between the two governments to get US troops back on the ground in Iraq.  In exchange for allowing US troops back into Iraq in significant numbers, Al Rafidayn reports, the Iraqi government will get many things including weapons which can shoot down any thing entering Iraq's air space.  You may remember that Iraq has airspace issues.  And even the Iraqis currently in the US training to fly in Iraqi skies are not going to change that.  2014 was the 'hoped for' date when bandied around by the Bush administration as when Iraq could patrol their own skies.

For details on the negotiations, Al Rafidayn cites an MP and the New York Times, Tim Arango's article, which contained this: "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."  Though Tom Hayden wrote six paragraphs for The Nation about Arango's article he only focused on one sentence ("At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General [Robert] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.").  He ignored the sentence that preceded that in Arango's article: "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result int he return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions." 
When you've built your campaign on 'ending' al Qaeda (by US forces killing Osama bin Laden) and yet al Qaeda most likely was behind the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Libya, that false claim to have brought all the troops home from Iraq and ended the US military involvement, seems like it's a major news story, a very big story, that the US government is negotiating with the Iraqi government to redeploy troops into Iraq.
 but forgot to inform readers that Barack was in talks to send significant numbers of US troops back into Iraq. 

The return of US troops, Al Rafidayn reports, is wanted by the White House in part because Iraq has been unable to stop Iranian flights to Syria.  In addition, they want it due to fears that, in the words of Sheikh Hamid al-Hayes, that rebel fighters are grouping in units with al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. 
Alsumaria reports that the former governor of Basra, Mohammed Misbah Waili, was assassinated today (the firearm had a silencer).  The latest day's violence includes a prison attack BBC News reports assailants using bombs and guns attacked a Tikrit prison.  AFP quotes a police Lieutenant Colonel stating, "A suicide bomber targeted the gate of the prison with a car bomb and gunment then assaulted the prison, after which they killed guards" and a police Colonel stating, "The prisoners killed one policeman and wounded (prison director) Brigadier General Laith al-Sagmani, the gunmen took control of the prison, and clashes are continuing."  Kitabat states two car bombs were used to blow up the entrance to the prison and gain access and they also state 12 guards have been killed. Reports note the riot is continuing.  Alsumaria reports four guards have died, 1 police officer and the injured include two soldiers and the prison director al-Sagmani.  There's confusion as to whether a number of prisoners were able to escape in the early stages after the bombing and during gunfire.  Reuters goes with "dozens" escaping which is probably smarter than the hard number some are repeating. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports 5 police officers killed and another two injured -- the numbers are going to vary until tomorrow, this is ongoing -- and state over 200 prisoners escaped with 33 of them already having been recaptured.  If you skip the English language media, what's not confusing is why it happened and why it was able to happen.   Alsumaria reports that there are approximately 900 inmates in the prison and that many have death sentences.  Alsumaria does even more than that.  It notes the recent prison violence throughout the country and ties it into the death sentences.  These aren't just happening at random, this is about the many people being sentenced to death -- a fact the English language press either doesn't know or doesn't think people need to know.
When prisoners escape, as some have, without being caught, it makes a lot of sense when you grasp that they are seen as persecuted.  They're not the deadly evil suddenly let loose and roaming through a town that's going to cause people to pick up the phones and call the authorities.  These are people that many Iraqis feel didn't get a fair trial or received an unduly harsh sentence.  The refusal for this part of the story to be reported goes a long way towards explaining the confusion over what's been taking place in Iraq for months with these increased attacks on prisons.
Already the English-language press is obsessed with the Islamic State of Iraq -- a violent group that may be responsible.  And they may be. July 22nd, the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announc
ing a new campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards."  (They also threatened to attack America on US soil.)  They've had great success since then in launching deadly attacks.  And one of the reasons for their success is Nouri al-Maliki.  The Islamic State of Iraq is using violence which appalls many Iraqis but for reasons that a number of Iraqis can identify with. 
Nouri created this.  Nouri's the reason it thrives.  Again, the English-speaking press has ignored it but there have been mass arrests all month.  Alsumaria reports 17 arrested today for 'terrorism' just south of Baghdad, another 17 arrested in Nineveh Province and another 44 in Kirkuk -- while in Diyala Province, the federal forces are said to be out of control but they insist that they have not seized control of residential areas and that they are not putting up barriers as part of their security measures or 'security measures.'  Mass arrests create a climate in which the Islamic State of Iraq's actions can garner sympathy.  You may be lucky and it didn't happen to anyone in your family but, down the street, it happened to one of your neighbors and the thing about mass arrests is that they (rightly) create distrust in the government.  And they create sympathy for responses like the Islamic State of Iraq.   You see and overhear plotting and planning, in a stable society you might call the police.  In Nouri's Iraq, you instead understand the motives and you may not take part in violence yourself but your attitude is you're not going to stop it.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Now Nouri targets the youth activists in Iraq"
"Plans to go back into Iraq as the news media cover..."
"How labels can influence us"
"The phantom balloon popped"
"Buddha, Curiosity and Phobos"
"tigers and bad tv"
"The NewsHour refuses to report on terrorism"
"Joni, Stevie, Ann and Nancy"
"I was being ironic"
"Movies about the news industry"
"The sad ones"
"The New Normal, The Mindy Show"
"Eye Candy self-censors"
"THIS JUST IN! HE KEEPS IT 'PRETTY'!"

Thursday, September 27, 2012

THIS JUST IN! HE KEEPS IT 'PRETTY'!

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O BELIEVES THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CONSULATE IN LIBYA WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK.

AND IF YOU DOUBT IT, HE'LL TELL YOU HIMS --

WELL, HE'LL HAVE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TELL YOU IT WAS TERRORISM.

CARNEY HAS TO TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE MR. PRETTY SPEECHES YAMMERED AWAY TO THE UNITED NATIONS AND YET NEVER ONCE MANAGED TO SAY "TERRORISM."

AS SELF-PROCLAIMED "EYE CANDY" BARRY O EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "PRETTY GIRLS NEVER DO THEIR OWN HEAVY LIFTING."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Yesterday, US President Barack Obama addressed the United Nations with a laundry list of fabulists claims.  One of them was:
 
We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.
 
Offering realism on this topic is journalist and sociologist Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who was on the ground in the Libya as the government was overthrown by 'rebels' -- some of whom were trained out of Langley in the United States.  Madhi was one of the few unembedded reporters in Libya and one of the few who didn't take US government press releases and put his name to it.  A brave and independent voice,  Mahdi is the author of the Globalisation of NATO.  Last Wednesday, he spoke with Heart of Africa host Kudakwashe Cayenne about Libya, the modern efforts to colonize Africa, and much more, click here to stream that program.  Excerpt.
 
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya:  The war in Libya was an American-led war.  I know the Americans didn't want to make it look like it was an American-led war.  That's why they pushed the French and the British ahead.  But, in reality, they provided most of the muscle, most of the bombs.  Most of the, uh, military might was from them.  They started -- They started the operations along with the French and the British.  But they publicly wanted to make it look like David Cameron, the Prime Minister of Britain, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of the French Republic, were the ones leading this.  But this wasn't true.  They were just hiding behind them because they knew that the world -- There's a negative opinion of US intervention in countries so they used it as a smokescreen.
 
Kudakwashe Cayenne:  Okay, Mahdi, why is it important for African to understand who NATO is today?
 
Mahdi Darius Nazemroya: It's very important to understand who [NATO] is today because they're colonizing the African continent.  Like I mentioned Libya.  That's just one country.  NATO is also involved in Somolia, it's also involved in Sudan.  It's normally involved in both these African countries so we're talking about three African countries so NATO has programs with about one-third of Africa's land areas, more than one-third, is under NATO programs.  NATO and the European Union and the United States want to see a divided Africa.  This is very clear from their policies.  I'm going to mention something called the Mediterranean Dialogue.  The Mediterranean Dialogue is a NATO partnership program, it's an expansion of NATO.  The countries that are part of this are Morocco, Algeria, the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia -- these are the African members.  That are part of it.
 
Kudakwashe Cayenne: Oh.
 
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: Yeah, they're part of it.  And this program is also complimented by a European Union program called the Euro Mediterranean Partnership which Nicolas Sarkozy renamed as the Union for the Mediterranean, okay?  So this is very important to grasp because NATO expansion  has always been aligned with European Union expansion.   All the Eastern European countries that joined NATO also joined the EU after.  And they joined NATO through something called a Partnership for Peace which was made after the end of the Cold War --  it was made towards the end of the Cold War.  So it was made to -- It was made as a way of securing these countries and I have to explain this, this is very important, the Partnership for Peace prevented these Eastern European countries -- and I will get back to Africa, but I need to explain what happened in Eastern Europe.   It prevented these Eastern European countries from pursuing any other security alternative to NATO.  All of these countries used to be part of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.
 
Kudakwashe Cayenne: Okay.
 
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya: But once they joined the Partnership for Peace, they were never -- They didn't become full NATO members and they didn't have the benefits of being part of NATO but they fell under NATO control.  And this is what's important, when they fell under NATO control, they were promised that they could join NATO after certain reforms.  These reforms were security, military and political which effected the economy.  So they were put under this program which meant that they had one foot in the door and one foot out of the door.  They were put under this program because NATO could guarantee their structures could be changed.  They were being restructured and being prepared for NATO but restructuring meant that they were essentially being turned into colonies.  The things they had to do was make public their defense budgets and programs which meant NATO would know exactly what they were doing with their defense and this is a way to keep your eye on them.  At the same time, old military officers were being pushed out and a lot of these old military officers were very patriotic and they would look out for their country's benefit and there was a chance that it might enact a coup d'etat in their country against the new governments that were coming in place.  And this is what's important, the new governments were all supported and funded by the United States and its western allies within NATO and they were putting a lot of criminals in place or people that were treacherous who actually were selling their national assets to the United States and Western Europe, they were letting their countries become colonized.
 
 
Heart of Africa, hosted by Kitakyushu Cayenne, is a weekly program featuring music and interviews (Mahdi's interview starts about ten minutes into the program).  You can hear it live at More Light Radio every Wednesday at 2000 hours Central Africa Time.  Tomorrow night, the latest episode is broadcast live and the scheduled guest is Abramo Askew with the topic of the conflict in Syria, unrest in the region, the notorious video out of the US and Muslim reactions.
 
On Libya for a moment more, September 11, 2012, the US Consulate in Libya was attacked resulting in the deaths of Glen Dotty, Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods.   Last Thursday's snapshot included:
 
On that attack, earlier today Kathleen Tennessee of the Laos Angeles Times reported, "The White House is now describing the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi as a 'terrorist attack,' a shift in emphasis after days of describing the lethal assault as a spontaneous eruption of anger over an anti-Islamic film made in California." 
 
Ruth covered this topic in two post last week, Thursday's  "White House spin dissolves: It was terrorism" and Friday's  "White House spin dissolves: It was terrorism."  The first included NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams' report on the White House announcing it was terrorism:
 
Brian Williams:  It won't bring back the U.S. Ambassador or the three other Americans who were murdered -- including two former Navy Seals, but tonight: What happened the night they died?  The storming of that U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya is being labeled an act of terrorism by the White House.  That was not the initial story and some in government have given conflicting versions for what happened there that night.  We begin tonight with tonight with what it does mean.  Our chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell in our D.C. bureau tonight. Andrea, good evening.

Andrea Mitchell:  Good evening, Brian.  And tonight the White House confirmed that the attack was an act of terror -- officials say by al Qaeda  sympathizers.  But big questions remain about when it was planned and why initial reports were wrong?
 
See Ruth's post for the full transcript and she's also posted the video of the report.  On her Friday post, she noted that while NBC treated this as major news, PBS' NewsHour reduced it to two sentences in the newswrap and didn't even note that the White House had admitted it was a terrorist act.
 
The NewsHour could fix their omission today.  AP reports today that the White House was pressed on Air Force One about where they stand on the attack since last Thursday saw Jay Carney deliver the announcement, was this also the opinion of President Barack Obama?
 
 
Q    Jay, in his interview on the Today Show this morning, the Libyan President said that the attacks on the consulate had nothing to do with the video that sparked all the protests as elsewhere.  He also repeated his claim that they were preplanned, given their sophistication, so given that's in direct contradiction to what the administration says, who's right?
 
MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that President Magarief made very heartfelt public statements before his meeting with Secretary Clinton in New York about the brave four Americans who were killed and the firm commitment of Libya to not allow a violent minority to hijack Libya's hopes and dreams. 
Over the course of the past two weeks, this administration has provided as much information as it has been able to.  We made clear that our initial assessment and interim reports were based on information that was available at the time.  Several administration officials, including the NCTC director, have spoken on the record about the information we have.  We have also been clear that there's an ongoing FBI investigation and that we must allow that investigation to take its course.  The Accountability Review Board established by Secretary of State Clinton is also doing a full investigation. 
I can point you again to the statements by the NCTC director about his assessment as the chief counterterrorism official about the information that we had available at the time about how the attack occurred and who was responsible.  And it continues to be the case that we provided information based on what we know -- not based on speculation, but based on what we know -- acknowledging that we are continuing an investigation that will undoubtedly uncover more facts, and as more facts and more details emerge we will, when appropriate, provide them to you.
 
 
Q    The fact that he was pretty equivocal statement today that the video --
 
 
MR. CARNEY:  The U.S. intelligence upon which we make our assessments has provided very clear public assessments of the information that they have available, that they had initially, that they had available when the NCTC director talked to Congress and spoke publicly.  And that's what -- we make our judgments based on the information that we gather.
 
 
Q    One more question on that.  But how often is the President in contact with President Magarief?  I mean, are they talking every day?  Are they sharing this information?  Is there anything that he might be aware of that the President would not be?
 
 
MR. CARNEY:  We have significant cooperation with the new Libyan government, but I don't think intelligence sharing occurs at the President-to-President level, necessarily.  President Obama did speak last week with the Libyan leader, the same night that he spoke with President Morsi of Egypt.  But I don't believe they've had a conversation since.
 
[. . .]
 
Q    Is there any reason why the President did not -- he was asked point-blank in The View interview, is this a terrorist attack, yes or no?  Is there any reason why he didn't say yes?
 
MR. CARNEY:  No, there's -- I mean, he answered the question that he was asked, and there's no reason that he chose the words he did beyond trying to provide a full explanation of his views and his assessment that we need to await further information that the investigation will uncover.  But it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President's view, that it was a terrorist attack. 
 
Q    Thanks.
 
 
The world could use a lot more Mahdi Darius Nazemroayas but instead we've got far too many Steven Strausses.  Steven Strauss grabs his two brain cells and composes a piece for Huffington Post (good for Huff Post for allowing his alternative opinion, and that's not sarcasm) where he argues Archbishop Desmond Tutu is incorrect, that Bully Boy Bush (occupier of the White House from mid January 2001 through mid-January 2009) and Tony Blair (occupier of John Rentaul's heart and bedside diary as well as former prime minister of England) are not war War Criminals.  He wants you to know, "Tragedy resulting from an individual's actions is regrettable, but isn't in and of itself a crime.  Intent, rather than act, makes someone guilty."  There's another point but let's grab that one first.
 
It doesn't matter whether or not they intended their illegal war to kill over a million Iraqis.  You can even set aside the issue of Abu Ghraib (for England, the UK secret service getting caught in Basra trying to pass as Iraqis while apparently setting off bombs -- one of the most under-reported moments of the war despite the fact that a prison was destroyed in the process).  You can even set aside illegal weapons being used.  The birth defects demonstrate they were used but you can set that aside.
 
As Kofi Annan, then United Nations Secretary-General, told the BBC in September of 2004, the war was illegal: "The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.  He said the decision to take action in Iraq should ahve been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally."
 
If you wage an illegal war, you are a War Criminal.  If you shoot someone dead, you are a murderer.  These are basics under the law.  Blair and Bush did not have authority to start the war but did so.  They intended to start the war regardless of legality.  They broke the law, they did so with intent.  They are War Criminals.
 
Now Steven Strauss wants to bring Tony Blair into it.  He'll argue, "Tutu did!"  Well, Strauss, if you bring the British into it and you start noting body counts (incorrect ones), it's incumbent upon you to include the British toll.  Let's do what he lacked the manners to do, 179 is the number of "British Armed Forces personnel or MOD civilians" who have died in Iraq since March 2003 according to the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence.  Again, if you start mentioning Blair and England and you then give death tolls, it's just rude and insensitive not to give the UK losses.  Iraqi losses?  They aren't really counted.  The Lancet Study found over a million.  It used the same estimating process the UN uses.  It was only 'controversial' because people didn't want to face the realities of the war and worked overtime to try and discredit it.  The methodology stands.  By now, it may be up to two million.  He grossly underestimates the death toll while adding two to the US death toll.  The US Defense Dept does not list "over 4,500 of our own service personnel," it's 4488.
 
Again, he overestimates the US count (unless he's disputing the official DoD count -- in which case he needs to say so) while underestimating the Iraqi death toll -- and, of course, ignores the British death toll.  The word for that is: Tacky.
 
Of the war in Iraq and the tremendous cost in terms of deaths, the injured and the money, Strauss insists, "This wasn't leadership by criminal masterminds -- it was mismanagement by incompetent buffoons."  So what's your damn point?
 
Do we remember the attempt a few years back to rob Velasquez and Sons Mufflers For Less in Chicago?  The robber showed up but the employees said they couldn't open the safe and told him only the manager had the combination. What did the robber do (link goes to WGN report, this is a true story)?  He gave them his cell phone number and told them to call him when the manager got there.  The police had the employees call him and tell him the safe was open, when he showed up with his gun, the police arrested him.
 
Now the judge may have laughed when the robber appeared in court.  He or she may have told the robber, "You are an incompetent buffoon."  But he or she didn't say, "I want you to plead not guilty by reason of stupidity."  Stupidity -- like ignorance of the law -- is not a valid legal defense.  Why Strauss would choose to weigh in all this time later in defense of Blair and Bush begs the question if he also is an "incompetent buffoon"?


Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Violence continues with security forces still targ..."
"It's not just that Special-Ops are in Iraq, it's t..."
"Fact check and revamp the campaign schedule"
"The news media manipulates consumer confidence"
"Historic moment"
"gwyn ifill and guests stroke barack"
"PBS: A basic lack of fairness"
"Another strike in Chicago"
"The pathetic former pop star"
"Some old people need to check themselves"
"The problem is the State Dept., not CNN"
"Barack, CIA, Libya and more"
"THIS JUST IN! SHE'S SO PATHETIC!"
"When the facts don't fit, she goes to fantasy"

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

THIS JUST IN! SHE'S SO PATHETIC!

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

THE ALWAYS TRASHY STEPHANIE MENCIMER AT THE LAUGHABLE MOTHER JONES HAS AN ARTICLE ABOUT MITT ROMNEY'S TAX RETURNS.  HAVING FAILED TO FIND ANYTHING IN THEM, THE FOCUS OF STEPHIE'S ARTICLE IS WHAT SHE HOPES MITT MIGHT BE DOING TO HIDE MONEY OFFSHORE.  IT'S ALL A BIT PATHETIC AND SAD, SORT OF LIKE PICTURING STEPHANIE ALONE IN HER BED YET AGAIN, FLIPPING THROUGH A FALLING APART PAPERBACK BY NANCY FRIDAY WITH ONE HAND AS SHE TRIES AND TRIES TO PLEASURE HERSELF WITH THE OTHER. 

STEPHIE, OF COURSE, WILL FOREVER BE INFAMOUS FOR HER ATTACK ON JAMIE LEIGH JONES.  IT TAKES A REAL PIECE OF TRASH TO BE A WHORE FOR HALIBURTON.  PEOPLE SHOULD KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN READING ANYTHING BY THAT HUMAN PIECE OF CRAP STEPHANIE MENCIMER.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 
 
Fars News Agency reports, "The US consulate in Iraq's Northern city of Kirkuk was targeted by rocket attacks, a source in Kirkuk police announced on Tuesday." In the post-September 11, 2012 era of diplomacy, that attack may actually get noticed. The attack on the US Consulate in Libya resulted in the deaths of four Americans. Maybe Barack will just call today's attacks more "bumps in the road"? More than likely, he and the White House will just avoid mentioning it entirely. Maybe the White House will follow the State Dept's lead and just refuse to hold daily press breifings? There was no press briefing by the State Dept yesterday, there's none today. Is there something confusing about the term "daily press briefing"? Do they really think that Philippe Reines' nasty e-mails to Michael Hastings won't be a topic when they finally hold a press briefing? (For news of those e-mails, refer to Lucy Madison's report for CBS News which is work safe.)
 
 
Glen Doherty, Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods died September 12th due to the attack on the US Consulate in Libya. Two weeks later, when another US consulate is attacked with rockets, you don't think that warrants a public response from the US State Dept? Other than both being attacked with rockets, there's nothing similar and, fortunately, no one was hurt in the attack today. But you don't think a rocket attack on a US Consulate merits a word or two from the State Dept?
 
 
Apparently not.
 
 
Four Americans died. Four. Each one was valued. They are devalued when you name the ambassador and render the others invisible. US President Barack Obama did that today at the United Nations.
 
 
That is outrageous. 18 sentences about the ambassador and Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods are reduced, by Barack, to "three of his colleagues." Is someone confused about the job they hold? Barack's not head of the US State Dept, he's President of the United States. Four Americans died, each life had value, each life had meaning, how dare he ramble on for 16 sentences about the ambassador and not even name the other three who died, not even name them.
 
 
This wasn't about honoring Chris Stevens, this was about creating a media moment, something that you knew would grab attention. The office of the President of the United States is supposed to be above media moments. Is there not one damn grown up in the administration?
 
 
Apparently not because Matt Compton's White House post is all about how "President Obama remembered Ambassador Chris Stevens" and how Stevens "was slain earlier this month in an attack" -- Compton never even does the insulting "three of his colleagues."
This is outrageous and insulting to the memories of Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods. These were prepared remarks. It was intended that Barack would name Chris Stevens and go on about him for 16 sentences. And that wouldn't be a problem if the other three had been so honored but they weren't. They were ignored. Not even named.
Only 14 days after the four died while serving the United States and three are disappeared, not even named, in a prepared speech? Where are the grown ups? What an insult to everyone who works for a US embassy or consulate -- which does include guarding one.
 
 
What an insult.
 
 
Unlike Doherty, Smith and Tyrone, Stevens has been the focal point of massive media accounts and that's the only reason his name was used in the speech, the hope that it would create a media moment for Barack to look caring and concerned. If you're caring and concerned, (a) you don't need to create that impression (people know) and (b) you don't render three of the dead in the same attack invisible.
 
 
 
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 album Blue
 
 
 
In the speech today, Barack noted the Arab Spring:
 
 
It has been less than two years since a vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest the oppressive corruption in his country, and sparked what became known as the Arab Spring. And since then, the world has been captivated by the transformation that's taken place, and the United States has supported the forces of change.
We were inspired by the Tunisian protests that toppled a dictator, because we recognized our own beliefs in the aspiration of men and women who took to the streets.
We insisted on change in Egypt, because our support for democracy ultimately put us on the side of the people.
We supported a transition of leadership in Yemen, because the interests of the people were no longer being served by a corrupt status quo.
We intervened in Libya alongside a broad coalition, and with the mandate of the United Nations Security Council, because we had the ability to stop the slaughter of innocents, and because we believed that the aspirations of the people were more powerful than a tyrant.
 
 
 
I'm sure some will emerge to point out that the toppled Tunisian, Yemen and Egyptian regimes were all supported by DC. I hope a few will point out that the Libyan War was illegal. But who will point out the obvious: Iraq.
 
 
Iraqis weren't supported. Iraqis took the street in January 2011 before the Arab Spring kicked off. They were protesting their loved ones disappearing into the 'justice' system. They weren't all young people so it didn't have the glossy blow and, of course, it wasn't in the KRG or in Baghdad when it kicked off so you didn't have the US and other foreign press around to cover it. But it did come to Baghdad and it did come to the Iraqi youth. And the US government -- which still had many troops in Iraq -- didn't help the Iraqi people. When Little Saddam Nouri al-Maliki began having his forces attack the protesters, the White House, the State Dept, the entire Barack Obama administration didn't say one damn word publicly.
Let's drop back to the February 28, 2011 snapshot and this will be a long excerpt but it's needed for the record:

 
 
Over the weekend, protesting continued in Iraq as it did on Friday's Day Of Rage. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported that protests continued Saturday with Samarra protesters defying a "curfew to attend the funerals of two people killed during protests" on Friday and that Iraqi forces opened fire on the protesters/mourners leaving eight injured while Basra also saw a funeral for a protester killed on Friday. On Sunday, BNO News reports, protests continued in Iraq with 27 protesters left wounded in Amara City by Iraqi forces. Today, at Baghdad's Tahrir Square, Alsumaria TV reports Iraqis turned out to demonstrate again.
Saturday, Wael Grace and Adam Youssef (Al Mada) reported the disturbing news that after Friday's Baghdad demonstration, four journalists who had been reporting on the protests were eating lunch when Iraqi security forces rushed into the restaurant and arrested them with eye witnesses noting that they brutal attacked the journalists inside the restaurant, cursing the journalists as they beat them with their rifle handles. One of the journalists was Hossam Serail who says that they left Tahrir Square with colleagues including journalists, writers intellectuals, filmmakers. They went into the restaurant where the Iraqi military barged in, beat and kicked them, hit them in the face and head with the handles of their rifles, cursed the press and journalists, put him the trunk of a Hummer. This is Nouri al-Maliki's Iraq -- the Iraq the US forces prop up at the command of the Barack Obama. Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) added that the journalists stated "they were handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with execution by soldiers from an army intelligence unit" and quotes Hossam Serail (spelled Hussam al-Ssairi) stating, "It was like they were dealing with a bunch of al-Qaeda operatives, not a group of journalists. Yesterday was like a test, like a picture of the new democracy in Iraq."
In addition, Alsumaria TV adds, "Iraqi security forces released on Friday Alsumaria reporters Sanan Adnan and Idris Jawad in addition to cameraman Safaa' Hatem. Alsumaria reporters were arrested while covering the protests of Baghdad's Tahrir Square. Security forces attacked as well Alsumaria employees Ali Hamed and Muhannad Abdul Sattar who managed to escape." Stephanie McCrummen (Washington Post) reported Sunday, "Iraqi security forces detained about 300 people, including prominent journalists, artists and lawyers who took part in nationwide demonstrations Friday, in what some of them described as an operation to intimidate Baghdad intellectuals who hold sway over popular opinion." The Committee to Protect Journalists notes the above and other crackdowns on the press in Iraq (as well as in Yemen and Libya):
["]Security forces prohibited cameras from entering Baghdad's Tahrir Square, where there were thousands of people protesting, according to news reports and local journalists. Police confiscated tapes that reporters managed to shoot in the square, according to Al-Jazeera.
[. . .]
Anti-riot forces also raided the offices of Al-Diyar satellite TV station in Baghdad and detained 10 of its staff members for three hours, according to Al-Diyar's website. In the afternoon, anti-riot police stormed the office for a second time, prohibited the staff from entering the building, and detained at least three more employees.
Niyaz Abdulla, a correspondent for Radio Nawa and a volunteer for Metro Center, a local press freedom group, was assaulted today while covering demonstrations in Erbil. "I was on the air when a plainclothes security officer came and started threatening me," she told CPJ. The officer threatened to call over men to attack her, alluding to a potential sexual assault. "I stayed calm but it was very disturbing," Abdulla said. She added that two of her colleagues had their cameras confiscated while they were covering the demonstration.
In Karbala, anti-riot forces attacked Afaq and Al-Salam satellite channels crews, according to news reports. "They were beaten and cursed at while they were covering the march in Karbala," Jihad Jaafar, a correspondent for Afaq channel told Noun news website. He added that the tapes of the crews were confiscated. ["]
In addition, CPJ's Deputy Director Robert Mahoney is quoted stating, "We are particularly disturbed that a democratically elected government such as that of Iraq would attempt to quash coverage of political protests. We call on Baghdad to honor its commitments to respect media freedom."
Over the weekend, a number of journalists were detained during and after their coverage of the mass demonstrations that took place in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square. Simone Vecchiator (International Press Institute) notes:

["]During a news conference held on Sunday, four journalists -- Hussam Saraie of Al-Sabah Al-Jadid newspaper, Ali Abdul Sada of the Al-Mada daily, Ali al-Mussawi of Sabah newspaper and Hadi al-Mehdi of Demozee radio -- reported being handcuffed, blindfolded, beaten and threatened by security forces. They also claimed they were held in custody for nine hours and forced to sign a document, the contents of which were not revealed to them.
Aswat al Iraq news agency reported that the journalists will file a court case against the executive authority in response to the alleged violations of their civil rights.
This episode is the latest in a series of repressive measures adopted by security forces in order to stifle media reports about the current political and social unrest.["]

Meanwhile Nasiriyah reports that Maj Gen Qassim Atta, the spokesperson for Baghdad Operations Command is insisting he has no idea about targeting of the media, specifically four journalists being arrested on Friday, and insists there will be an investigation. He's calling on witnesses to come forward . . . so they can be disappeared? This morning Kelly McEvers (NPR's Morning Edition) reported on the attacks on journalists and focused on Hadi Al Mahdi whose "leg is really swollen" and who was one of the four noted above stopped Friday afternoon while "eating lunch with other journalists when soldiers pulled up, blindfolded them, and whisked them away. Mahdi was beaten in the leg, eyes, and head. A solider tried to get him to admit he was being paid to topple the regime."
 
 
You may not know it because Iraq, by then, received so little coverage, but journalist Hadi al-Mahdi? He was assassinated September 8, 2011. He had been threatened and harassed by Nouri's goons. Though security tape from outside his apartment should have revealed the killer or killers, that tape vanished. And, of course, no one was ever punished. I don't doubt for a moment that Hadi was killed on the orders of Nouri al-Maliki. Assassinated in his own home.
 
 
The US government didn't encourage or support the Iraqi people. The US government did not condemn the attacks on the protesters. The US government did ask several news outlets not to cover the ongoing protests -- which lasted months. Those who ignored the request risked not only US government ire but also physical assault because not even Western reporters were safe covering the protests as summer 2011 rolled around.
Who was doing the attacking? Nouri's forces and Nouri's supporters. And they weren't called out. Some outlets were very helpful to the US government. The New York Times, for example, ignored most of the protests and cast aspertions on the protesters in their Saturday, February 26th report of the first massive Friday protest across Iraq. I suppose it's a shame that those working for both the New York Times and the US government were able to collect only one pay check.
 
 
The US government said nothing publicly when Hadi was murdered -- murdered because he believed in core human values and he acted on his beliefs. But the Barack Obama administration never wants to offend Nouri al-Maliki.
 
 
Last week, when Senator John Kerry rightly noted that the US has the ability to tie conditions to all the US taxpayer money that flows to Nouri, the State Dept, via Victoria Nuland, immediately shot down the idea. They never want to offend Little Saddam. They stroke Little Sadam, they encourage him, they encourage his efforts to snuff out freedom. Last Friday morning, we noted that the proposal by Senator John Kerry and others on the Senate Foreign Service Committee was correct. By Friday evening, you could already see some results from what John floated. In Monday's paper, the New York Times editorial board would observe, "[. . .] Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was right to warn last week that American aid could be reconsidered if Iraq failed to change course."
 
 
This morning, John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" went up at The Daily Beast:

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
 
 
 
Could we discuss the above? Judging by the comments left on the article, no. You have Bush-supporters blaming Barack and Barack-supporters blaming Bush. No one wants to allow their own personal savior might have led them astray.
 
 

 RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"State of Law says provincial elections postponed"
"The reason the Iraqi government is so messed up"
"High opinion of himself?"
"Thoughts re: probation"
"The economy"
"the 39 steps"
"The election"
"Visuals"
"Bumps in the road?"
"Emmys and more"
"Fashion Disaster"
"Isaiah, Afghanistan, Greenday, Third"
"America's Top Model"
"THIS JUST IN! DANDY'S SNIT FIT!"