YEARS AGO, DECADES, TINA BROWN TURNED VANITY FAIR INTO A BEST SELLING PIECE OF TRASHY SMUT. SHE TOOK THE SAME FLEET STREET TRASH ATTITUDE TO THE NEW YORKER BUT IT FAILED MISERABLY.
THEN SHE ENDED UP WITH TALK MAGAZINE WHICH ALSO FAILED. MISERABLY.
SHE WAS GIVEN A CHANCE TO CREATE SOMETHING WITH THE MERGER OF THE DAILY BEAST AND NEWSWEEK.
BUT INSTEAD PROFESSIONAL JEALOUSY OF ARIANNA HUFFINGTON HAS LED HER TO ABANDON THE FEW BITS OF JOURNALISTIC SENSE SHE HAD TO GO SMUTTY.
THE UGLY BALDING MAN GRABBING THE 'BREAST' OF "HILLARY" IN THE PHOTO ABOVE IS OBAMA SPEECHWRITER JON FAVREAU -- A PIECE OF TRASH THAT TINA BROWN DECIDED TO HIRE FOR THE DAILY BEAST. IS HE A JOURNALIST?
NOPE BUT SHE'S GOT A MAJOR CASE OF HUFFINGTON ENVY.
IF THERE WAS A REASON TO HIRE A MAN WHO, EIGHT YEARS AGO, POSED FOR THE PHOTO ABOVE, IT WAS TO ASK HIM TO WRITE ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH HIS HEAD WHEN HE THOUGHT THAT'S HOW A MAJOR CAMPAIGN WORKER CONDUCTED ONE'S SELF.
INSTEAD, TINA BROWN WILL JUST GLADLY TAKE (AND POST) ANY GARBAGE JON FAVREAU SPEWS.
THE FUNNY REALITY IS THAT ARIANNA HUFFINGTON -- A SELF-STYLED JOURNALIST -- WOULD NEVER LOWER HERSELF TO RUN THE CRAP JON FAVREAU JUST WROTE ('IT'S NOT BARRY'S FAULT HE'S SO SCREWED UP, IT'S THE FAULT OF YOU THE PUBLIC!') ARIANNA, FOR ALL HER FAULTS, WOULD REALIZE HOW RIDICULOUS THAT WAS.
IN THE END, TINA BROWN MAKES A COMPLETE IDIOT OF HERSELF, A VICTIM OF ARIANNA ENVY.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Like Jon Stewart, The Onion's gotten a little too long in the tooth, it's audience a little too broad and a lot too stupid. That's how you get their 'joke' where they insulted the 9-year-old Quvenzhane Wallis back in February. It's how you get last week's Onion piece about Barack sending troops back into Iraq for the "reinvasion" -- which I suppose passes for humorous if you're stupid and ignorant and want to advertise those facts.
From Tuesday's snapshot:
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "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. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
Mike and Elaine covered Iraq at their sites on Tuesday noting their disbelief that Daniel Ellsberg and Phyllis Bennis would make fools of themselves twaddling on about how US troops have left Iraq. All US troops never left Iraq. Last March, Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Washington Post) included the claim that all had left in his "Five myths about Iraq" column.
Last week, the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." The report was written by Kenneth Katzman.
General [Martin] Dempsey's August 21, 2012, visit focused on the security deterioration, as well as the Iranian overflights to Syria discussed above, according to press reports. Regarding U.S.-Iraq security relations, Iraq reportedly expressed interest in expanded U.S. training of the ISF, joint exercises, and accelerated delivery of U.S. arms to be sold, including radar, air defense systems, and border security equipment. [. . .]
After the Dempsey visit, reflecting the Iraqi decision to reengage intensively with the United States on security, it was reported that, at the request of Iraq, a unit of Army Special Operations forces had deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence, presumably against AQ-I. (These forces presumably are operating under a limited SOFA or related understanding crafted for this purpose.) Other reports suggest that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paramilitary forces have, as of late 2012, largely taken over some of the DOD mission of helping Iraqi counter-terrorismf orces (Counter-Terrorism Service, CTS) against AQ-I in western Iraq. Part of the reported CIA mission is to also work against the AQ-I affiliate in SYria, the Al Nusrah Front, discussed above.
Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to reengage militarily with the United States, during December 5-6 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi. The five year MOU provides for:
* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises
The MOU appears to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing its mission to its full potential. The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas put forward, such as joint exercises.
So the Congressional Research Service explains, in a report for the US Congress, that US troops have gone back into Iraq? The liars aren't capable of shame. Phyllis Bennis, since the 2011 drawdown (the US Pentagon called it a "drawdown" and not a "withdrawal" and did so for a reason), has sometimes declared all have left and sometimes noted some remain. It's apparently too hard for her to tell the truth so she needs little 'breathers' to catch her breath. This isn't something that should vary. If you're an analyst and billed as such and discussing US troops in Iraq, there's only one answer, only one correct one.
Let's go over what the report said the Memo of Understanding provided for:
* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises
Pretty obvious. But so was the explanation of what the MoU provided that we offered in the December 10th snapshot. Even so, we were compelled to review it again in the December 11th snapshot:
In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the Memorandum
of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of
Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the
United States of America. Angry,
dysfunctional e-mails from Barack-would-never-do-that-to-me criers
indicate that we need to go over the Memo a little bit more. It was signed on Thursday and announced that day by the Pentagon.
Section two (listed in full in yesterday's snapshot) outlines that the
two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training
personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces
will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises. The
tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger
numbers. Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together
on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.
This shouldn't be surprising. In the November 2, 2007 snapshot
-- five years ago -- we covered the transcript of the interview
Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did with then-Senator Barack Obama who
was running in the Democratic Party's primary for the party's
presidential nomination -- the transcript, not the bad article the paper
published, the actual transcript. We used the transcript to write "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'"
at Third. Barack made it clear in the transcript that even after
"troop withdrawal" he would "leave behind a residual force." What did
he say this residual force would do? He said, "I think that we should
have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we
get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter
insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have
said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training
approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."
This
is not withdrawal. This is not what was sold to the American people.
Barack is very lucky that the media just happened to decide to take that
rather explosive interview -- just by chance, certainly the New York Times
wasn't attempting to shield a candidate to influence an election,
right? -- could best be covered with a plate of lumpy, dull mashed
potatoes passed off as a report. In the transcript, Let-Me-Be-Clear
Barack declares, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because
this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat
troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our
civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities."
So
when the memo announces counterterrorism activies, Barack got what he
wanted, what he always wanted, what the media so helpfully and so
frequently buried to allow War Hawk Barack to come off like a dove of
peace.
The administration is as empty as the media. If you doubt that, September 26th, the New York Times' Tim Arango reported:
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. 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.
This is not a minor topic. If you claim you pulled all troops out and you didn't, that's called news. If you claimed you pulled all troops out and September 26, 2012, it's reported you didn't, that's big news. If you're running for re-election and you have debates after September 26th, that topic should be front and center.
But as Ava and I repeatedly noted (here and at Third) it wasn't. At the end of September Tim Arango's report appears. Where was the traction, where was the coverage, where were the questions? From Ava and my November 7th "Let the fun begin:"
Days later, October 3rd, Barack 'debated' Mitt Romney. Again October 16th. Again October 22nd.
Not once did the moderators ever raise the issue.
If Barack's sitting before them and he's flat out lying to the American people, it's their job to ask. They didn't do their job. Nor did social menace Candy Crowley who was apparently dreaming of an all-you-can-eat buffet when Barack was babbling away before her about how he wouldn't allow more "troops in Iraq that would tie us down." But that's exactly what he's currently negotiating.
Maybe Candy Crowley missed the New York Times article? Maybe she spends all her time pleasuring herself to her version of porn: Cooking With Paula Deen Magazine?
That is possible.
But she was only one of the three moderators. Bob Schieffer and Jim Lehrer also moderated. Of course, they didn't foolishly self-present as a fact checker in the midst of the debate nor did they hit the publicity circuit before the debate to talk about how they were going to show how it was done.
Three moderators moderating debates after Tim Arango's article is printed allowing Barack to claim he withdrew troops from Iraq in three debates, one after the other. Crowley, Schieffer and Lehrer never raised the issue. We won't call them whores for a change, we'll just note how stupid and ignorant they are.
In yesterday's snapshot, I said we'd address the topic today. That's because I get tired of going over it. I have to provide links, I have to go so slow, bit-by-bit. And even so, the public e-mail account will fill with e-mails that Martha, Shirley, Eli, Beth, KeShawn, Jess, Dona, Jim, Kat, Ruth, Isaiah, Ava and myself will have to endure insisting I am lying. E-mails from people who -- even when you provide them with links -- links that go to the New York Times, links that go to the Pentagon (the Pentagon issued a press release on the Memorandum of Understanding, they weren't shy about it, the press refusal to cover it is a question for you to ask whatever news outlet you turn to) -- will insist that I've made the whole thing up.
The most common statement in these e-mails will be an insisting that if Barack had sent US troops back into Iraq, it would be all over the news and on the front pages.
It should be.
But it wasn't.
At some point, you're going to have to stop trying to stone the Cassandra and face reality. [Or maybe I just close the public e-mail account and we just take feedback from community members. As Gina (the gina & krista round-robin) has long observed, this is a private conversation in a public sphere.]
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"General Renee Montagne leads NPR charge to war on ..."
"The American Concentration Camp"
"If it's not one insane rapper, it's another"
"Iraq"
"The economy"
"owen wilson's in iron man? i love owen!!!!!"
"Deanna Durbin"
"Jimmy Connors, still a piece of trash"
"Iraq War veteran John Kriesel"
"Body of Proof -- will Megan have to perform an autopsy of the show?"
"Why can't Policy Mic handle the topic of rape?"
"Nikita and Law and Disorder Radio"
"Americans lost their homes because of her"
"THIS JUST IN! CORPORTAE WELFARE FOR SUBPRIME LOAN QUEEN!"
