BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
NATIONAL JOKE KATHERINE SEBELIUS TOLD CONGRESS YESTERDAY THAT OBAMACARE NEEDS "HUNDREDS OF FIXES."
SO THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY IS IN HER OFFICE TODAY, SLEEVES ROLLED UP, OVERSEEING THE FIXES AND . . .
SHE'S HIT THE ROAD.
TRYING TO SELL OBAMACARE ONE LIE AT A TIME.
LET'S HOPE THE ROAD HITS HER BACK.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
The RAND Corporation has been around in the United States for a very
long time. It's hailed as a think tank which is like calling The
Brookings Institute a social club. While Brookings flirts with military
worship, RAND has that in its DNA -- creation of RAND was by the US
Air Force with the sole purpose of exploring better weapons. In 1948,
RAND supposedly separates from the government but its work really
doesn't change and certainly the usual suppliers feed it (Ford
Foundation, etc). They (after 'independence') popularize the notion of
'winnable' nuclear war. Where there is propaganda posing as science
and thought, you will often find RAND. The late Chalmers Johnson offered a history of RAND at TomDispatch.com in 2008 which included:
For example, RAND's research conclusions on the Third World, limited
war, and counterinsurgency during the Vietnam War were notably
wrong-headed. It argued that the United States should support "military
modernization" in underdeveloped countries, that military takeovers and
military rule were good things, that we could work with
military officers in other countries, where democracy was best honored
in the breach. The result was that virtually every government in East
Asia during the 1960s and 1970s was a U.S.-backed military dictatorship,
including South Vietnam, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines,
Indonesia, and Taiwan.
It is also important to note that RAND's analytical errors were not
just those of commission -- excessive mathematical reductionism -- but
also of omission. As Abella notes, "In spite of the collective
brilliance of RAND there would be one area of science that would forever
elude it, one whose absence would time and again expose the
organization to peril: the knowledge of the human psyche."
Following the axioms of mathematical economics, RAND researchers
tended to lump all human motives under what the Canadian political
scientist C. B. Macpherson called "possessive individualism" and not to
analyze them further. Therefore, they often misunderstood mass political
movements, failing to appreciate the strength of organizations like the
Vietcong and its resistance to the RAND-conceived Vietnam War strategy
of "escalated" bombing of military and civilian targets.
Now RAND's published an argument (posing as science) entitled Ending the US War In Iraq.
The full title is Ending the US War in Iraq: The Final Transition,
Operational Maneuver, and Disestablishment of United States Forces-Iraq
and the authors are Rick Brennan Jr, Charles P. Ries, Larry Hanauer, Ben
Connable, Terrence K. Kelly, Michael J. McNerney, Stephanie Young,
Jason Campbell and K. Scott McMahon. It runs nearly 600 pages (the
report itself is 344 pages of text). Former US Ambassador to Iraq James
Jeffrey writes the foreword.
Jeffrey gets to tell the first lies. No, not about WMD. Jeffrey skips
the whole start of the war and pretends that its start was as natural as
summer turning into fall. No, his lie is that this 'historical record'
is "an independent and objective analysis." Since when does the US
government hand over documentation to groups to let them form
independent and objective analysis?
In collaboration with the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, the United States
Forces - Iraq (USF - I) provided RAND access to plans, operations,
orders, internal staff deliberations, strategic and operational
assessments, and a host of other contemporaneous information on how U.S.
forces completed, transferred, transformed, or terminated all
activities being conducted in Iraq. In addition, a RAND research team
spent two weeks in Iraq in 2011, interviewing the leaders and staffs of
both Embassy Baghdad and USF - I.
No, that's not the description of independence. That's the description
of the US government hiring someone to craft an argument they want.
After the first lie of 'independent' analysis, the lies just come tumbling out of Jeffrey. Such as here:
With U.S. assistance, Iraq has been
given an opportunity for a sovereign and stable future, possessing the tools necessary
to maintain internal security and the foundation necessary for external defense. The
United States and Iraq should continue to work together to develop a government that
is answerable to its people and their elected representatives, with a growing economy
that is capable of continued growth and development.
This partnership is the same the United States seeks to share with
all nations governed by principles of freedom, that respect the rights
of their citizens, and that ensure
the benefits of this freedom for all. This is the future the United
States desires with
Iraq. It is a future of mutual respect and mutual benefit. This
opportunity has come
at great cost and sacrifice, both by the people of Iraq and all who have
served there. It
should not be squandered.
Those are pretty lies, but they're still lies.
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you
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 Blue
James Jeffrey became US Ambassador to Iraq solely because Barack Obama's
hand picked golden boy wasn't golden. Turned out that was a coating of
urine on Chris Hill. Every petty move, every 'analysis' was deeply,
deeply wrong and Hill was and remains deeply stupid.
Little Chris went to Iraq and didn't have the brains or sense even to
not insult Iraqis in front of Iraqi staff. He ran them into the ground
and did so in front of Iraqis. He was known for his bi-polar spiral,
his office naps and his petty attacks on Gen Ray Odierno who Chris Hill
was deeply jealous of -- a jealousy that led him to whine to the White
House that the press liked Odierno better and the White House responded
to Chris' tantrum by telling Odierno to stop speaking to the press.
For those who've forgotten, Odierno was the top US commander in Iraq.
That is who Chris Hill was jealous of and attempting to sideline.
Odierno also had common sense -- another skill set absent in Chris Hill.
As March 2010 parliamentary elections approached, the US press did what
it always does, acted as lackeys to the White House. And so you got all
these ridiculous stories about how Nouri would 'win' and get a second
term, win by a huge majority. The US press (and much of the Western
press) offered fluff, the Arab press outlets were reporting on Nouri's
bribery efforts. (At its most basic, the man who never took the time
to bring the Iraqi people drinkable water was especially fond of
bringing them large amounts of ice in trailers in the lead up to the
Nouri had been appointed as Prime Minister in the spring of 2006 not
because he had any support from the Iraqi people -- most didn't even
know his name at that point -- but because he was the choice of the Bush
administration. (The White House had nixed Ibrahim al-Jafaari --
Parliament's choice -- which was part of the reason the elections took
place in December 2005 but no one was named prime minister-designate
until April 2006.) He was a failure.
He did nothing to improve electricity, water or any public services. He
took part in cutting and gutting the ration-card system and what
rations your card could allow you to receive free for yourself and your
family. This wasn't popular. Of course it wasn't. Why would people
used to getting basic food staples for free be happy when then staples
were greatly reduced.? Of course they wouldn't. And this was taking
place during not only war but also during increased poverty. It was not
a smart move.
It did make many (the World Bank, for example) outside of Iraq happy.
To the Iraqi people, it was just more evidence of how the country
lacked a leader and instead had a US-installed puppet who danced for
others. The fate of the Iraqi children today damns Nouri as a failure. Ali Mamouri (Al-Monitor) explores the status of the children and notes:
In addition to this, there are an increasing number of homeless children in Iraq. According to statistics, one
out of every eight Iraqi children is displaced. They are usually
exploited and sent to beg in the streets or to work under harsh
conditions and sometimes even used as prostitutes. They are often
exposed to physical or sexual abuse, and cases have been reported where they have been exploited to carry out terrorist acts. When children involved in terrorist acts are arrested, Iraqi law does not take into consideration their
special situation. They are punished with sentences similar to those
passed on adults, which often entail many years of imprisonment.
On another note, high rates of child labor in Iraq have been registered and some studies have shown that
there are nearly 100,000 children in the Iraqi workforce. Moreover, 83%
of Iraqi children have worked for their families on a permanent basis,
without receiving any wage. Children usually work under dire and harmful
conditions such as in garbage collection, brick and steel factories
and farming. However, Article 29.b.3 of the Iraqi Constitution specifies
that “economic exploitation of children shall be completely prohibited.
The state shall take the necessary measures to protect them.” Yet,
state institutions are not efficiently combating this phenomenon for
many reasons, including the preoccupation by the government with issues
of maintaining security and fighting terrorism. The emergence of
widespread child labor in Iraq is furthermore an issue of utmost
difficulty to deal with. In many cases, children are the breadwinners
for their younger siblings and have no one else to rely on.
Nouri was then -- and is now -- known for his dramatic statements
(threats?) that never pan out. In his first term, when Iraqis were
still willing to give him a chance, they realized how little his words
meant. His first big stand took place when he was out of Iraq. The
2006 summer violence was on the rise. The US military began putting up
more Bremer Walls (barricade walls) throughout Iraq. Nouri insisted
that the walls would immediately be removed. He got back to Baghdad . .
. and the walls remained.
In 2008, he oversaw an attack that the Bush White House wanted -- in
Basra and in Sadr City in Baghdad -- an attack on Shi'ites. In Basra,
record numbers of Iraqis self-checked out of the Iraqi military. Prior
to that, he'd already overseen a 'sectarian war' (the ethnic cleansing
of 2006 and 2007). While the US press gas bagged over that two year
period, they focused on b.s. like the 'surge.' This was an injection of
US forces into Iraq, a 'surge' in the number of them.
The US press wanted to pretend that they were focused on that. The
whores didn't even get that right. The 'surge' was part of the
benchmarks -- a set of goals that Nouri's government would meet in order
to continue to receive US tax dollars, US military and so much more.
The 'surge' was supposed to take the Iraqi emphasis off dealing with
violence and give them the ability to focus on the needed political.
The 'surge' was a failure. Yes, the US military did their job. But the
benchmarks were never met -- not in 2007, not in 2008. The surge was a
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq's film industry"
"Olive Garden honors veterans this Veterans Day"
"Carney's not life size"
"THIS JUST IN! HAMSTER LIKE JAY-JAY WHINES!"