THE VOICE OF RUSSIA REPORTS CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S MARRIAGE HAS HIT THE ROCKS, THE FAN AND THE TRASH PILE.
THOUGH THE WHITE HOUSE IS OFFICIALLY DENYING THE REPORTS, WHITE HOUSE PLUS SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY INSISTED TO THESE REPORTERS THAT HE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEMS BETWEEN THE FIRST COUPLE.
"IT WASN'T ME!" CARNEY SCREAMED BEFORE JIGGLING HIS EXPANDING BELLY. "AND THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH TURKEY AND HAM. DON'T YOU BE SAYING THE PREZ KNOCKED ME UP!"
ASKING THESE REPORTERS IF THEY KNEW WHERE HE COULD PURCHASE "A CHEAP, MAYBE EVEN SECOND HAND BREAST PUMP," CARNEY WALKED AWAY.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
As noted this morning, misreporting took place by many outlets:
The Voice of Russia states, ""The United States is sending dozens of missiles and surveillance
drones to Iraq to help government forces combat an explosion of violence
by al-Qaida-backed insurgency that is gaining territory in both western
Iraq and neighboring Syria." This is echoed by The NewsHour (PBS), "The U.S. is "quietly"
sending dozens of Hellfire missiles and surveillance drones to Iraq, in
hopes the government can quell an al-Qaeda insurgency." Noah Rayman (Time magazine) parrots, "The United States is supplying Iraq with arms and surveillance
technology to combat al-Qaeda-backed insurgents amid worsening violence,
the New York Times reported Thursday, two years after the last American combat troops left the country." AFP runs with, "The United States is sending Iraq dozens of missiles and surveillance
drones to help it combat a recent surge in al-Qaida-backed violence, the New York Times reported Thursday. The
weapons include a shipment of 75 Hellfire missiles purchased by Iraq,
which Washington delivered to the country last week, the Times reported."
Fortunately, not all outlets have correspondents from the kiddie table.
Elise Labott and Tom Cohen (CNN) get it right regarding who is providing arms, "Two years after bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq, the Obama
administration is sending Hellfire rockets and ScanEagle surveillance
drones to help government forces fight al Qaeda affiliates growing in
influence, a State Department official confirmed to CNN on Thursday."
Paul Richter (Los Angeles Times) also gets it right, "The Obama administration has begun sending Hellfire missiles and
surveillance drone aircraft to Iraq to help the government battle an
expanding threat from local Al Qaeda-affiliated militants, U.S.
officials said, the first such assistance since the American withdrawal
from Iraq in 2011."
Congress wasn't notified of these arms. The Arms Export Control Act's
Section 36(b) requires that the President of the United States informs
Congress in writing of all defense articles sold to foreign governments
before the sale goes through. That's the law.
So was these sold or was this another 'gift' that the US taxpayer is paying for?
December 12th, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation and Trade and the Subcommittee on the Middle East and
North Africa held a joint-hearing on Iraq. We covered it four days
later in the
December 16th snapshot.
Subcommittee Chair Ted Poe: Now he wants some help once again. He
talks out of both sides of his mouth while trying to cozy up to the
United States, he cozies up to the Iranians at the same time. Prime
Minister Maliki came here dragging the sack in November wanting more tax
payer money. He wanted attack helicopters and all sorts of advanced
equipment. But is that what he needs to go after al Qaeda? Does he
have other reasons for wanting that equipment? Maliki has centralized
power. alienated the Sunnis, brought back the Shi'ite hit squads. This
in part has allowed al Qaeda to return to be back in Iraq. What Maliki
needs is a new strategy to fight al Qaeda. This includes doing a better
job of reaching out to the Sunni population so that they feel that
Maliki represents all Iraqis, not just one group.
And we'll note this:
Ranking Member Brad Sherman: And he wants American weapons. And his
biggest argument is that we should give him American weapons because
his enemies hate us. The problem is, his friends hate us too. And his
friends in Tehran are more dangerous to us than his enemies in Falluja.
Now Maliki's argument goes something like this: He holds office today
solely as a result of various actions taken by the United States -- some
of which were mistakes. And so therefore he is our product and
therefore we have to protect him and do whatever he wants. And so
therefore he is one of the good guys no matter who he allies himself
with today. The fact is, his allegiance to Tehran is only a little bit
less than Assad's allegiance to Tehran. But Maliki's government goes
something like this: Since he has been the beneficiary of a series of
American mistakes in the past, we have a legal duty to continue to make
mistakes on his behalf in the future. Uhm, if we're going to provide
him with weapons, there ought to be at least four conditions. The first
is that he start trying to reach a compromise with at least some
elements of the Sunni community. He's taken provocative actions against
Sunnis such as postponing elections in Sunni areas and forcing
prominent Sunni politicians out of the government. He shouldn't be
seeking the best deal he can for the Shi'ite community, he should be
seeking a peace that would benefit not only him but the United States.
And he needs to allow proper Sunni representation in his government.
Second, if he wants our weapons, he ought to pay for them. People
involved in foreign policy seem to be so focused on foreign policy that
whether we get paid for the weapons is a footnote. The fact is Iraq has
plenty of oil now, will have even more in the future. They've to
enough cash to pay for the weapons now and they can certainly borrow on
the international markets and, at very minimum, they can agree to pay us
later in cash or oil. Third, he's got to stop Iranian flights over his
air space into Syria. He'll say, 'Well then give me an airforce.' We
don't have to. All he has to do is authorize the Saudi, the Turkish or
the American airforce to ensure that his air space is not used by
Iranian thugs transiting to so that they can destroy and kill as many
innocent people and some non-innocent people in Syria. And finally he's
got to focus on the hostages of Camp Ashraf and the human rights of
those in Camp Hurriyah also known as Camp Liberty. These are
international responsibilities that he has. So if there is no
penetrating analysis, the argument will be: 'We created him, he seems
like a good guy, he's in trouble, therefore we give him weapons for
free.' That is the default position of our foreign policy
Congress wasn't informed. Either Barack broke the law or Iraq is being
given -- by Barack with the US taxpayers footing the bill -- these
weapons. There was also
no public announcement.
Congress wasn't informed. I have no idea why the New York Times,
'breaking' the story seems to have forgotten to contact Congress.
That's sort of a basic for a news outlet.
Outlets run statements like
this from Australia's ABC: "'The recent delivery of Hellfire missiles
and an upcoming delivery of Scan Eagles are standard [foreign military
sales] cases that we have with Iraq to strengthen their capabilities to
combat this threat,' a State Department official said."
That would say this was Iraq purchasing; however, "foreign military
sales" is not said in the quote by the State Dept. The State Dept quote
is, "The recent delivery of Hellfire missiles
and an upcoming delivery of Scan Eagles are standard cases that we have
with Iraq to strengthen their capabilities to
combat this threat."
So it may be a gift. We'll stay with 'gift' for now.
What's Congress going to say about this 'gift'?
We know what was said this month.
Subcommittee Chair Ted Poe: When I was in Iraq, a couple of years
ago, a year and a half ago, Prime Minister, I asked him the question
about the oil and how about paying for some of this nation building,
military, all the things America's doing and he literally went -- was
very vocal about Iraq would not pay the United States a dime for helping
them liberate their country and rebuild their country. So I think that
may still be his position.
I can't imagine that Congress will be thrilled by the 'gift.' As
RT observes, "Other plans to provide Iraq with supplies have also stalled in
Congress, where a bill to lease and sell the country's Apache
helicopter gunships to Baghdad is languishing among concern that
Maliki would use them to bully his political rivals."
UPI notes
the 75 Hellfire Missiles arrived in Iraq last week and that "more are
expected." Rethink Afghanistan puts the cost of a single Hellfire
Missile at $58,000. 75 of them? Check my math, but that comes to
$3,750,000. A nearly four million dollar 'gift' has been purchased with
the American taxpayer dollars. And that's not counting the drones.
There aren't specific numbers being reported regarding the drones, so
we'll just note the
US Air Force put the price of one system (4 drones and the reporting device) at $3.2 million in 2006. We're now at the price tag of $7 million dollars.
Taxpayer dollars, Barack's not using the family checkbook on this gift.
Among the reasons Congress objects?
Nouri's a thug and they know it. Many members of Congress also have an
affinity for the KRG -- the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional
Government. KRG President Massoud Barzani's repeatedly warned about the
danger arming Nouri could result in.
He's not the only one concerned. US military leaders thought, with
regards to the F-16s the US will provide Iraq with next year, there was
an agreement in place in June that no planes would be supplied until the
Iraqi military was restructured because US military intelligence raised
red flags over the appointments Nouri was making -- key positions being
filled by those with links to Iran. US military leaders were disturbed
by that for a number of reasons including Iraq providing Iran with
technology. Again, the White House appeared to give their word that the
F-16 transfer would be slowed down so that it did not take place until
after the 2014 parliamentary elections (currently scheduled for April
30th). US military intelligence says Nouri can't win re-election as
Prime Minister, he's too unpopular. (He didn't win re-election in 2010.
His State of Law lost to Iraqiya but the White House brokered The
Erbil Agreement to go around the voters and the country's Constitution
and give Nouri a second term.)
I was told this evening that the drone transfer is "outrageous." The
military officer noted the US already runs drones (US military and CIA)
in Iraq and wondered why Nouri needed his own but, more to the point,
why this technology was being handed over to Nouri since the same drones
are used in spying on other countries? (He meant Iran.)
There are a lot of questions to ask about this 'gift.'
The press seems so uninterested in any of them.
Recommended: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
I don't work -- or lie -- for the MEK"
"
The White House is arming Iraq, not the US"
"
The State Dept issued a statement then pulled it a..."
"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Not Born In A ..."
"
Iraq snapshot"
"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Under The Tree..."
"
Iraq: At least 766 violent deaths so far this mont..."
"
The Portable Sowell: The Imprudence and Stupidity ..."
"
Last episode of Nikita"
"
Saving Mr. Banks Tanks"
"
Medea can't stop whoring"
"
julia roberts flops again"
"
Nothing"
"
Ava and C.I. are the TV experts"
"
Thoughts on NBC's Revolution"
"
Ephron nailed it"
"
Behind the US attacks on Russia?"
"
Isaiah's comic and a big moment in 2013"
"
Christmas"
"
Wesley Snipes"
"
the sad comic movies"
"
How to know what books to skip"
"
Happy Holidays, Jesse Richard"
"
What's funny to me?"
"
Favorite Chrismas song"
"
Lucy and Desi are still the champions"
"
Baby, please come home"
"
Illegal spying and Nikita"
"
Do as he says, not as he does"
"
THIS JUST IN! OBAMACARE'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR HIM!"
