BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IN FLORIDA, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S APPROVAL RATING HAS FALLEN TO 40%.
THEY DON'T CALL IT THE SUNSHINE STATE FOR NOTHING.
ALL THAT SUNLIGHT HAS EXPOSED A STILL NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME PRESIDENT.
ACROSS THE NATION, THE LATEST POLL FINDS ONLY 41% APPROVAL FOR BARRY O.
WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TOLD THESE REPORTERS TODAY THAT ACTIONS ARE BEING CONSIDERED, "WE'RE EITHER GOING TO ARRANGE CASUL TOPLESS SHOTS OF POTUS -- THOSE WERE SO POPULAR IN 2009 AND STILL SHOULD BE BECAUSE HIS MANBOOBS FULLER THESE DAYS. OR WE'RE GOING TO SEND OPRAH ON A NATIONAL TOUR TO INSIST ANY CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT IS RACIST. WE'RE SURE EITHER ACTION WILL FIX THE PROBLEM."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Did you hear about those awful Gittes?
Those people are just evil. They just want to take over the world. The whole region would be better off without them.
Thank goodness, we know that they are inherently evil, right?
Now we know the cause of all the violence.
And since it's just those damn Gittes, there's no reason to look to what anyone else is doing wrong, certainly not a government.
It's just those Gittes, they have death and destruction on the brain -- it's in their blood.
So now that we know the problem we just have to figure out if we're going to arrest them all or just kill 'em? Hunt em down, exterminate them, right?
There are no Gittes.
The above is stated for a reason (and Gittes because I had Chinatown on the brain -- script by Robert Towne and Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway star with Jack Nicholson playing private investigator JJ Gittes).
For the second day in a row, RT has allowed John Wright to blame Sunnis for the violence in the Middle East including Iraq.
How stupid or hateful is he?
Does he even know what the situation is in Syria?
But Wright tells you the problem is Sunnis. Sometimes he says "Sunni fundamentalists."
There are some Sunnis who do resort to violence - -they're not the only group in the rgion that does -- and it apparently is 'cute' to call them "fundamentalists." But 'cute' or not, that's also inaccurate. Fundemantalists are one thing -- in any religion, in any area. They take their religion very seriously. Doing so means they don't usually resort to violence. In the US, we have some religious fundamentalists who are opposed to this or that. Religious fundamentalist in the US do not, for example, kill abortion doctors. The ones who do that are extremists or fanatics; however, they aren't really "fundamentalists." Fundamentalists would take to prayer not to bombing an abortion clinic.
Fundamentalists are different than I am. I live a secular life with modern toys and amusements. But they're being different from me -- or me being different from them -- doesn't give me the right to misdescribe them. And pay really close attention here because this is the part that effects all of humanity: When you hold up violence as a form of religious fundamentalism?
The grown ups who are fundamentalists blow you off. They know better.
They know that they have strict observance of their faith and that's what makes them fundamentalists.
Kids?
Kids are always trying to make sense of the world and figure out where they fit in -- that is what growing ups about. So you take a confused kid with religious leanings -- especially one shocked by some new development or modernity -- and you raise him -- via the media -- to believe that religious fundamentalism -- strict observance of your faith -- means bombing and killing people?
You've just created a generation of people who now believe this is how you express your faith.
That's especially likely in Iraq where there are so many orphans as a result of the illegal war. In November of last year, Caroline Hawley (BBC News) reported "that between 800,000 to a million Iraqi children have lost one or both of their parents." That's a huge number. It's also probably an undercount -- 4.5 million is probably closer to reality., the Iraqi Orphan Foundation estimates the number to be 3 million and, at the start of 2009, Timothy Williams (New York Times) reported 740,000 widows in Iraq -- not all widows have children or children under the age of 18 but there are a huge number of orphans in Iraq without any parent and that was 2009. The violence hasn't ceased since 2009 and, in fact, it has picked up. Regardless of whether the number is four million or one million, that's a huge number -- especially in Iraq where the population is estimated.
The teenage years are fraught with confusion -- bodies change, hormones rage, you're still a child but confronted with adult situations. For some teenagers, that period can be one where they find salvation in religion or retreat deeply into it, however you want to see it. Do you really want to create the message for this group of children that bombing and shooting -- killing -- is religious fundamentalism?
John Wright's uninformed and ugly stereotype is not only false, it is highly damaging.
But it is false as well.
By blaming Sunnis for the problems in Iraq, Wright's able to ignore so much including how Nouri al-Maliki fuels the violence.
The mass arrests of Sunnis fuel the violence. Monday, for example, 85 people were rounded up in Wasit Province alone. The mass arrests would be disturbing in any country.
They're especially disturbing in Iraq.
There is no speedy justice. People linger in jails, detention centers and prisons with the no court appearance and, in fact, often with no charges brought against them.
Some held in prisons, jails and detention centers can't be charged. They were arrested but they were arrested for no real reason. They aren't even suspects. But, in Iraq, when you can't find the suspect, you're allowed to arrest their wives or mothers or siblings or fathers or children or grandparents.
They're rounded up and arrested with no one believing they broke a law. They're arrested, taken from their homes and thrown behind bars because they're related to a suspect.
The disappeared (into the 'legal system') are among the issues fueling the ongoing protests. As Mayada Al-Askari (Gulf News) observed Monday, "In the past two years, demonstrations have increased in Baghdad and other governorates as people have been calling for better services, the release of women detainees and more civil rights."
Now if the problem is just these 'bad' Sunnis, as John Wright keeps insisting, then we don't have to worry about what Nouri's doing, we don't have to worry about a minority population being disenfranchised.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The oversimplifiers"
"Responding to masculinist Mary Wendy Roberts"
"Gloria Steinem explains she was a CIA agent"
"To God's ear"
"michael moore's an idiot"
"The stupid New York Times columnist"
"Laura Nyro"
"Revolution"
"Arrow"
"Happy Birthday, Barack!"
"That idiot Harry Reid"
"So much free time, so little work"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O WANTS TO HELP!"
Friday, November 22, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
THIS JUST IN! BARRY O WANTS TO HELP!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO TELL NEWS AGENCY WHAT IS NEWS AND WHAT IS NOT NEWS.
WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O MADE CLEAR HE DID NOT SEE THE PROBLEM.
"I NEVER DO MY OWN JOB SO I HAVE ALL THIS FREE TIME AND A PERSON CAN ONLY GOLF SO MUCH," INSISTED THE DAHLIBAMA. "SO I USE MY EXTRA TIME TO DO THE WORK OF OTHERS. THEY SHOULD BE THANKING ME."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Mad Maddie's back in the news today. David Lerman (Bloomberg News) reports the vampire zombie rose to speak in Chicago:
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the U.S. must overcome a loss of trust from Arab nations that’s developed since the Iraq war as it seeks a deal with Iran on its nuclear program.
“In many different ways, there was an erosion of trust in terms of what we were doing there,” Albright said of the Iraq war in a session today at “The Year Ahead: 2014,” a two-day conference in Chicago hosted by Bloomberg LP.
With the blood thirsty War Hawk Mad Maddie Albright (who thinks a standing military means its there for her own capricious adventures) to lead, what could possibly go wrong?
For the answer to that question, just look to Iraq which is yet again slammed with violence. The western media focuses on Bahgdad. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes 7 car bombings and 2 roadside bombings have left 47 dead in Baghdad with one-hundred-and-thirty-two more injured. RTE, RTT and Russia Today also focus on Baghdad (to distinguish themselves, RT presents a xenophobic statement by the UK's John Wright). Mohammed Tawfeeq updates his report here.
Outside of Baghdad?
National Iraqi News Agency reports 1 military officer was shot dead outside his Shura Village home, 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead outside his Mosul home, a Falluja roadside bombing left 1 police member dead and two more injured, a second Falluja bombing left three police members injured, a Baquba sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people injured, and Jalal Talabani's chief body guard was shot dead in the KRG. All Iraq News adds that 1 "Iraqi Army postman" was shot dead in Mosul as he delivered mail. Cheng Yang (Xinhua) reports, "In Iraq's eastern province of Diyala, a young man was killed and his father critically wounded when a sticky bomb attached to their car detonated in the town of Buhruz, near the provincial capital city of Baquba, a provincial police source told Xinhua. Separately, four bombs planted to houses in the eastern part of Baquba, went off in the morning and caused damage to the houses and slightly wounded two children, the source said."
Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 421 violent deaths so far this month. BBC News reminds, "The UN says 979 people - including 158 police and 127 military personnel - were killed in violent attacks in October. More than 6,500 civilians have died since January."
About the death of that chief body guard of Jalal Talabani's, Colonel Sarawr Hama Rashed. Xinhua reports that he was shot dead in his Sulaimaniyah home "in front of his wife" and that he was "the chief bodyguard of Iraq's president."
Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq. Or he's supposed to be. The question continues to be: Can you be the president of a country you're not in? Last December, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently.
So questions need to be answered regarding not just why the body guard wasn't in Germany but also regarding Jalal's real health condition because despite months of claiming that he'd be returning any second, Jalal still hasn't. And he's still not spoken in front of any recording camera and all visits by Iraqi politicians are refused. For 11 months now, he's not performed his duties and he's been out of the country. The Iraqi people deserve answers.
As the lies about Jalal continue so do the rains in Iraq. All Iraq News notes 12 homes collapsed in Babel due to flooding and 4 people drowned in Najaf due to the flooding. That's attributable to Nouri al-Maliki who's failed to improve the infrastructure despite being prime minister since 2006. Improved civil construction would eliminate the standing waters. Instead, an out-dated sewage system (last worked on in the 1970s) gets backed up and allows the waters to stand. In Diwaniya, a home collapsed killing a mother and daughter. That's very sad but the collapse of the home from heavy rains is nature, it's not an effect of Nouri. Another woman in the same city died of electrocution. That was from flooding in the home. Most likely that is Nouri's fault. The heavy rains pooled in the streets, there was not adequate sewage drains on the streets to pull the water elsewhere and the woman's home flooded. That's government's fault, not nature. Yesterday's snapshot noted that Nouri was stating each province in need would receive 200 million dinars. Oops. He got his headlines for 'leadership' and then his petty nature took over. Al-Shorfa reports today that the deal is now 200 billion Iraqi dinars for all of Iraq's provinces -- not for each. In addition, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran explains:
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq slammed with violence"
"Jalal's in Germany, his bodyguard is killed in Ira..."
"The idiot Mary Wendy Roberts and other things"
"And what kind of a name is Mary Wendy anyway?"
"Thank you, Ms. magazine"
"the bitchy mary wendy roberts"
"Harriet Fraad remembers how the women's movement was harmed"
"Mary Wendy Roberts is a stupid bitch"
"Gloria Steinem's White entitlement"
"Syria and other things"
"Stupid bitch Mary Wendy Roberts"
"Dumb Ass Mary Wendy Roberts"
"He's got a new plan"
"THIS JUST IN! PLAN DISTRACTION FAILS!"
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS NOW ATTEMPTING TO TELL NEWS AGENCY WHAT IS NEWS AND WHAT IS NOT NEWS.
WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O MADE CLEAR HE DID NOT SEE THE PROBLEM.
"I NEVER DO MY OWN JOB SO I HAVE ALL THIS FREE TIME AND A PERSON CAN ONLY GOLF SO MUCH," INSISTED THE DAHLIBAMA. "SO I USE MY EXTRA TIME TO DO THE WORK OF OTHERS. THEY SHOULD BE THANKING ME."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Mad Maddie's back in the news today. David Lerman (Bloomberg News) reports the vampire zombie rose to speak in Chicago:
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the U.S. must overcome a loss of trust from Arab nations that’s developed since the Iraq war as it seeks a deal with Iran on its nuclear program.
“In many different ways, there was an erosion of trust in terms of what we were doing there,” Albright said of the Iraq war in a session today at “The Year Ahead: 2014,” a two-day conference in Chicago hosted by Bloomberg LP.
With the blood thirsty War Hawk Mad Maddie Albright (who thinks a standing military means its there for her own capricious adventures) to lead, what could possibly go wrong?
For the answer to that question, just look to Iraq which is yet again slammed with violence. The western media focuses on Bahgdad. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes 7 car bombings and 2 roadside bombings have left 47 dead in Baghdad with one-hundred-and-thirty-two more injured. RTE, RTT and Russia Today also focus on Baghdad (to distinguish themselves, RT presents a xenophobic statement by the UK's John Wright). Mohammed Tawfeeq updates his report here.
Outside of Baghdad?
National Iraqi News Agency reports 1 military officer was shot dead outside his Shura Village home, 1 Iraqi soldier was shot dead outside his Mosul home, a Falluja roadside bombing left 1 police member dead and two more injured, a second Falluja bombing left three police members injured, a Baquba sticky bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people injured, and Jalal Talabani's chief body guard was shot dead in the KRG. All Iraq News adds that 1 "Iraqi Army postman" was shot dead in Mosul as he delivered mail. Cheng Yang (Xinhua) reports, "In Iraq's eastern province of Diyala, a young man was killed and his father critically wounded when a sticky bomb attached to their car detonated in the town of Buhruz, near the provincial capital city of Baquba, a provincial police source told Xinhua. Separately, four bombs planted to houses in the eastern part of Baquba, went off in the morning and caused damage to the houses and slightly wounded two children, the source said."
Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 421 violent deaths so far this month. BBC News reminds, "The UN says 979 people - including 158 police and 127 military personnel - were killed in violent attacks in October. More than 6,500 civilians have died since January."
About the death of that chief body guard of Jalal Talabani's, Colonel Sarawr Hama Rashed. Xinhua reports that he was shot dead in his Sulaimaniyah home "in front of his wife" and that he was "the chief bodyguard of Iraq's president."
Jalal Talabani is the President of Iraq. Or he's supposed to be. The question continues to be: Can you be the president of a country you're not in? Last December, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently.
So questions need to be answered regarding not just why the body guard wasn't in Germany but also regarding Jalal's real health condition because despite months of claiming that he'd be returning any second, Jalal still hasn't. And he's still not spoken in front of any recording camera and all visits by Iraqi politicians are refused. For 11 months now, he's not performed his duties and he's been out of the country. The Iraqi people deserve answers.
As the lies about Jalal continue so do the rains in Iraq. All Iraq News notes 12 homes collapsed in Babel due to flooding and 4 people drowned in Najaf due to the flooding. That's attributable to Nouri al-Maliki who's failed to improve the infrastructure despite being prime minister since 2006. Improved civil construction would eliminate the standing waters. Instead, an out-dated sewage system (last worked on in the 1970s) gets backed up and allows the waters to stand. In Diwaniya, a home collapsed killing a mother and daughter. That's very sad but the collapse of the home from heavy rains is nature, it's not an effect of Nouri. Another woman in the same city died of electrocution. That was from flooding in the home. Most likely that is Nouri's fault. The heavy rains pooled in the streets, there was not adequate sewage drains on the streets to pull the water elsewhere and the woman's home flooded. That's government's fault, not nature. Yesterday's snapshot noted that Nouri was stating each province in need would receive 200 million dinars. Oops. He got his headlines for 'leadership' and then his petty nature took over. Al-Shorfa reports today that the deal is now 200 billion Iraqi dinars for all of Iraq's provinces -- not for each. In addition, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran explains:
Following the heavy rainfall last night in Iraq, flood covered the
entire of Camp Liberty. Water has accumulated many of the sections
reaching up to half a meter in some parts.
No one can go around the camp and transportation has stopped completely. This has caused great problems for the residents at the camp.
This is while water accumulated from the previous rainfall that occurred 10 days ago had not been removed. Restrictions and lack of required systems has hindered the residents from being able to confront this catastrophe.
The widespread flood has also caused serious problems for the hunger strikers whom are on their 81st day, preventing transfer of those who face critical problems to the Iraqi clinic at the camp. This has caused great risk for the lives of the hunger strikers.
No one can go around the camp and transportation has stopped completely. This has caused great problems for the residents at the camp.
This is while water accumulated from the previous rainfall that occurred 10 days ago had not been removed. Restrictions and lack of required systems has hindered the residents from being able to confront this catastrophe.
The widespread flood has also caused serious problems for the hunger strikers whom are on their 81st day, preventing transfer of those who face critical problems to the Iraqi clinic at the camp. This has caused great risk for the lives of the hunger strikers.
On Camp Ashraf, I need to do a disclosure. We got an e-mail from
someone connected with the movement. I didn't read it. Shirley
responded to it on my behalf at my request. That's as close as we're
getting. If that offends someone, my apologies.
We have defended the Ashraf community for years now. When Jon Corzine
and others were being targeted by the US government for their work on
this issue, we defended them. What I did not note then was that, while
visiting friends at the Justice Dept at that time, I was asked if I
would submit to official questioning because I was on 'the list.' I sat
for 15 minutes of questions. It was ludicrous to assume that I'd take
money from anyone but I did offer my bank records willingly. They were
not examined, the offer was not taken up. But for what I'd written
here, I was questioned. My response was not to go silent on the issue
and not to move away from it. If anything, we got louder in our defense
of the Ashraf community. No charges were brought against me because I
had no involvement with the Ashraf community. That's why I nod to the
people in yellow suits at the Congressional hearings but don't
approach them.
I will continue to support the Ashraf community here -- as long as
they're in Iraq and as long as we're here online. But I will also
continue to maintain a wall. Nothing against the community, but I am
independent and I think my voice here has more value as a result. I
also wish to remain able to say, if questioned again, "No, I have not
any contact with any representative or member of the Ashraf community."
The Ashraf movement is more than welcome to e-mail articles or press
releases and we'll note them when we can. But I do not have private
conversations with the movement.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq slammed with violence"
"Jalal's in Germany, his bodyguard is killed in Ira..."
"The idiot Mary Wendy Roberts and other things"
"And what kind of a name is Mary Wendy anyway?"
"Thank you, Ms. magazine"
"the bitchy mary wendy roberts"
"Harriet Fraad remembers how the women's movement was harmed"
"Mary Wendy Roberts is a stupid bitch"
"Gloria Steinem's White entitlement"
"Syria and other things"
"Stupid bitch Mary Wendy Roberts"
"Dumb Ass Mary Wendy Roberts"
"He's got a new plan"
"THIS JUST IN! PLAN DISTRACTION FAILS!"
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
THIS JUST IN! PLAN DISTRACTION FAILS!
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THOUGHT HE HAD A GREAT PLAN. (HE MAY BE THE ONLY ONE WHO STILL BELIEVES IN HIS PLAN.) SEND A COUPLE OF BORDER AGENTS INTO MEXICO CITY TO POSE AS THE FIRST FAMILY OF MEXICO AND TRICK JUSTIN BIEBER INTO BELIEVING HE'D MET THE PRESIDENT OF MEXICO. LET JUSTIN TWEET THAT. THEN WHEN THE MEXICAN PRESIDENT RESPONDS HE'S NEVER MET JUSTIN, BIEBER WILL LOOK LIKE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST LIAR AND NO ONE WILL EVEN BE THINKING ABOUT BARRY O'S OWN LIES.
BUT, AS THE DAHLIBAMA ADMITTED TO THESE REPORTERS TODAY, THE ONLY ONE TO REALLY CARE ABOUT THE ABOVE STUNT WAS TMZ "AND I'M STILL BEING RAKED OVER THE COALS!"
JOHN DICKERSON OF SLATE MAKES LIKE RACHEL GREEN'S MOTHER ("ONCE A CHEATER, ALWAYS A CHEATER") BY DECLARING, "ONCE A PRESIDENT LOSES HIS CRED, IT'S HARD TO GET IT BACK."
AND ONCE YOU'RE KNOWN AS THE LIAR, PEOPLE START LOOKING AT YOUR OTHER CLAIMS -- LIKE THE CLAIM, IN THE LAST WEEKS OF THE 2012 ELECTIONS, THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HAD DROPPED.
BUT BARRY O ISN'T WORRIED, HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS, BECAUSE HE'S GOT A PLAN TO MAKE BRITNEY SPEARS THINK SHE'S MET THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANDADA.
"OH, YEAH," HE SAID CHUCKLING, "THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CONVERSATION!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
US Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Today her office issued the following:
RSS Feed for Senator Murray's office
From the Senate, let's note the way the US government spends the money they collect in taxes. Kristina Wong (Washington Times) reports that while other countries are below poverty level and Iraq rakes in over $100 billion in oil, Iraq remains the target of charity. Specifically, there's a reconstruction fund that two countries are pulling out of -- but not the United States. And the US government gave Iraq $470 million of US tax payer dollars in Fiscal Year 2013 and, for Fiscal Year 2014, the US government plans to give $500 million. This has nothing to do with the $573 million dollar loan -- again these are US tax payer dollars -- the US government is granting Iraq to purchase military weapons.
There is some concern over all the US tax dollars being poured into Iraq. Last week, Brett McGurk, the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, appeared Wednesday before the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa (see last week's "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot").
US House Rep Brad Sherman: I want to focus on finances. How much money did we give Iraq this year? How much do they get from oil? And are they pumping oil as quickly as they can or are they constraining their production in accordance with OPEC rules?
Brett McGurk: In terms of money, we're not really giving Iraq much money at all anymore. Our assistance levels have gone down dramatically.
US House Rep Brad Sherman: But it's still well over a billion?
Brett McGurk: Uh, no. I believe that the most recent request is now of under a billion. It's gone from 1.5 billion last year to, uh, FY13 [Fiscal Year 2013] to about 880 million. And I can again brief you on the glide path in terms of our overall presence.
The actual request by the State Dept is $1.18 billion. What Wong's reporting on? It's in addition to that. So Wong's reporting $1.073 billion for Iraq in FY14 plus the $1.18 billion the State Dept is requesting for Iraq.
As we noted last week, Brett McGurk lied to Congress over and over.. Let's stay with that theme for a moment. Today the UNHCR issued the following:
The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) calls for renewed efforts from states to relocate former Camp Ashraf residents, also known as Camp New Iraq.
Since the 1 September 2013 attack on Camp New Iraq where 52 residents died, there has been limited progress in moving the remaining residents to a third country. UNHCR encourages all Member States to share in the international efforts, admit residents and offer them a long-term solution.
UNHCR and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) also call upon the Government of Iraq to take all possible measures to ensure the safety of the residents. UNHCR and UNAMI remain gravely concerned about the fate of seven missing individuals formerly residing in Camp New Iraq who disappeared on 1 September and call on the authorities to locate them, ensure their wellbeing and safeguard them against any forcible return.
Since 2011, UNHCR, together with UNAMI, has been engaged in an effort to find relocation opportunities outside Iraq for some 3,200 former residents of Camp New Iraq. In total, UNHCR has so far been able to secure the relocation to third countries of 300 residents.
So today the UNHCR issues a call for action. It's by no means the first time they've done that and they'll do it again as needed. But we're not talking about the United Nations, we're talking about Brett McGurk and the US State Dept.
"It's an urgent and humanitarian issue, an international humanitarian crisis," insisted McGurk to Congress last week.
And the State Dept supposedly takes the issue seriously.
Supposedly.
It was the UNHCR fueling the conversation on the Ashraf community today. Not the State Dept. They issued no statement. They didn't even raise the issue at their press briefing today.
Or yesterday.
Or Friday.
Or Thursday.
Or Wednesday -- the day McGurk testified to Congress.
Or . . .
Do we see the pattern?
McGurk lies to Congress last week claiming that the US is providing leadership and raising awareness but it's done nothing on the most basic terms.
They only hired a person in the middle of September to oversee the issue in response to the over-fifty deaths and 7 kidnappings.
And, here's a little info the administration doesn't want the MEK thinking about, due to the Geneva obligations the US government owes to Camp Ashraf residents, the US government is now legally liable. It didn't honor international law -- law which the US signed onto -- so survivors of the dead can file charges -- international court would be the best place, since this is international law -- against the US government and so could the families of the kidnapped.
Considering the fact that the US government's reputation is mud on the world stage thanks to all the wars and all the illegal spying, international courts could be harsh on the US.
And when the US didn't provide security?
People probably grasp this because the law is so rarely reported on.
The US government is liable.
People get hurt all the time!
Yes, indeed they do.
But, under Geneva, the US was supposed to guarantee the safety of these people.
And the US government can't even argue human error, act of god or any other legal claims.
That's because the US stationed no one, not one person, to protect the residents. But that was the US obligation. And they failed to honor it and people died as a result.
That's a lot of money.
Most likely, the US would reject any legal finding -- which would just demonstrate, even more, to the global community that the US government has no respect for the law.
In other words, if I were MEK, I'd be looking for a lawyer to file charges right away.
To get rich? No. To force the US government to address the 7 hostages and get them out of harm's way.
And, FYI, the court to file in would, in fact be, the International Court of Justice. -- it has jurisdiction over Geneva issues.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's Iraq: Flooding and killing"
"USA Today misses the point of Odierno's comments"
"Eleanor Catton, Terry Teachout, Paul Harding and S..."
"Follow up on Cher"
"The Mindy Project"
"Food"
"revenge - the good"
"Bill Ayers wrote another book"
"The homophobia of People magazine"
"Margaret Flowers writes a must-read column"
"What apology?"
"Anjelica Huston on Fresh Air"
"A tale of multiple losers"
"More lies exposed"
"THIS JUST IN! DOES HE EVER TELL THE TRUTH?"
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THOUGHT HE HAD A GREAT PLAN. (HE MAY BE THE ONLY ONE WHO STILL BELIEVES IN HIS PLAN.) SEND A COUPLE OF BORDER AGENTS INTO MEXICO CITY TO POSE AS THE FIRST FAMILY OF MEXICO AND TRICK JUSTIN BIEBER INTO BELIEVING HE'D MET THE PRESIDENT OF MEXICO. LET JUSTIN TWEET THAT. THEN WHEN THE MEXICAN PRESIDENT RESPONDS HE'S NEVER MET JUSTIN, BIEBER WILL LOOK LIKE THE WORLD'S BIGGEST LIAR AND NO ONE WILL EVEN BE THINKING ABOUT BARRY O'S OWN LIES.
BUT, AS THE DAHLIBAMA ADMITTED TO THESE REPORTERS TODAY, THE ONLY ONE TO REALLY CARE ABOUT THE ABOVE STUNT WAS TMZ "AND I'M STILL BEING RAKED OVER THE COALS!"
JOHN DICKERSON OF SLATE MAKES LIKE RACHEL GREEN'S MOTHER ("ONCE A CHEATER, ALWAYS A CHEATER") BY DECLARING, "ONCE A PRESIDENT LOSES HIS CRED, IT'S HARD TO GET IT BACK."
AND ONCE YOU'RE KNOWN AS THE LIAR, PEOPLE START LOOKING AT YOUR OTHER CLAIMS -- LIKE THE CLAIM, IN THE LAST WEEKS OF THE 2012 ELECTIONS, THAT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HAD DROPPED.
BUT BARRY O ISN'T WORRIED, HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS, BECAUSE HE'S GOT A PLAN TO MAKE BRITNEY SPEARS THINK SHE'S MET THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANDADA.
"OH, YEAH," HE SAID CHUCKLING, "THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CONVERSATION!"
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
US Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Today her office issued the following:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office
November 19, 2013 (202) 224-2834
MURRAY SPEAKS OUT AGAINST MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT
(Washington, D.C.) – Today,
as the Senate debates the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),
U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) joined a bipartisan group of female
Senators on the floor to speak out against sexual assault in the
military and call on her colleagues to support some of the historic
changes being made to prevent this scourge. Sen. Murray also highlighted
her legislation with Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), which has been included in the NDAA bill, to provide trained military lawyers to victims of sexual assault in all service branches.
“When our best and our brightest put
on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they do so with
the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of defending our
country and its people. But that sacrifice should never have to come in
the form of abuse from their fellow service members,” said Senator Murray in her speech. “Thanks
to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated
advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken
out we are poised to make a difference on an issue that women everywhere
have brought out of the shadows.”
In August, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel directed immediate implementation
of several measures to “gain greater consistency of effort and enhance
oversight, investigative quality, pretrial investigations and victim
support” in cases of military sexual assault. Among other measures, the
directive includes implementation of trained lawyers to provide victims
in all branches with guidance through the legal process, similar to the
legislation introduced by Senators Murray and Ayotte.
Full text of Senator Murray’s speech below:
“I first want to thank Senator
Mikulski and Senator Collins for helping to bring many of us to the
floor today to discuss an issue that: cuts across partisan lines, has
plagued our nation’s military, and has gone unaddressed for far too
long.
“Military Sexual Assault is an
epidemic. And it has rightly been identified as such by the Pentagon. It
is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow servicemember, the person
you rely on to have your back and to be there for you, would commit such
a terrible crime. It is simply appalling they could commit such a
personal violation of their brother or sister in uniform. But, what’s
worse, and what has made change an absolute necessity - is the
prevalence of these crimes.
“Recent estimates tell us that 26,000
servicemembers are sexually assaulted each year. And just over 3,000 of
those assaults are reported. According to the Department of Veterans
Affairs, about one in five female veterans treated by VA has suffered
from military sexual trauma. One in five.
“That is certainly not the act of a
comrade. It is not in keeping with the ethos of any of the services. And
it can no longer be tolerated. And that is why the women of the Senate
have been united in calling for action.
“There has been much made of the fact
that there are now 20 women in the Senate – a historic number that I
think we all agree still needs to grow. But it’s also important to
remember that the number alone should not be what’s historic. Instead,
it is what we do with our newfound strength to address the issues that
are impacting women across the country. With this bill, the first
Defense Authorization of this Congress, we are doing exactly that.
“We are taking historic action to help
servicemembers access to the resources they need to seek justice
without fear. And, one way this bill will help do just that, how it
will: protect our servicemembers, assist victims, and punish criminals
-- is through the inclusion of a bill I introduced, across party lines,
with Senator Ayotte.
“Our bill, which is included in the
base bill, creates a new category of legal advocates, called Special
Victims’ Counsels, who would be responsible for advocating on behalf of
the interests of the victim. These SVCs would also advise the victim on
the range of legal issues they may face.
“For example, when a young Private
First Class is intimidated into not reporting a sexual assault by
threatening her with unrelated legal charges -- like underage drinking
-- this new advocate would be there to protect her and tell her the
truth.
“Since January, the Air Force has
provided these advocates to over 500 victims through an innovative new
pilot program. Ten months later, the results speak for themselves: 92%
of victims are “extremely satisfied” with the advice and support their
SVC lent them throughout the military judicial process, 98% would
recommend other victims request these advocates, 93% felt that these
advocates effectively fought on their behalf.
“In describing their experience with
an advocate, one victim shared that, “Going through this was the hardest
thing I ever had to do in my life. Having a Special Victim Counsel
helped tremendously . . . No words could describe how much I appreciate
having one of these advocates.”
“Through our bipartisan efforts the
Defense Authorization bill will also enhance the responsibilities and
authority of DoD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office – also
known as SAPRO.
“This improvement will help to provide
better oversight of efforts to combat military sexual assault across
the Armed Forces. SAPRO would also be required to regularly track and
report on a range of MSA statistics, including assault rates, the number
of cases brought to trial, and compliance within each of the
individual services.
“Some of this data collection and reporting is already being done.
“So this requirement would not be more
burdensome, but it would give that office authority to track and report
to us on the extent of the problem.
“I believe the great strength of our
military is in the character and dedication of our men and women who
wear the uniform. It is the courage of these Americans, to volunteer to
serve, that are the Pentagon’s greatest asset. I know it is said a lot,
but take a moment to really think about it.
“Our servicemembers volunteer to face
danger, to put their lives on the line, to protect the country and all
its people. When we think of those dangers, we think of IEDs. We think
of battles with insurgents, we shouldn’t have to focus on the threats
they encounter from their fellow servicemember.
“And we should never, never allow for a
culture in which the fear of reporting a crime allows a problem like
this to fester year after year.
“These are dangers that cannot be
accepted, and none of our courageous servicemembers should ever have to
face. Earlier this year when I asked Navy Secretary Ray Maybus about the
sexual assault epidemic, I was glad that he told me that “concern”
wasn’t a strong enough word to describe how he feels about this problem.
He said he is angry about it.
“And I know many of us here,
particularly many of my female colleagues who have dedicated so much
time to this issue, share this feeling and want to put an end to this
epidemic. So, I am hopeful that we can work quickly to do right by our
nation’s heroes.
“Because when our best and our
brightest put on a uniform and join the United States Armed Forces, they
do so with the understanding they will sacrifice much in the name of
defending our country and its people. But that sacrifice should never
have to come in the form of abuse from their fellow service members.
“I’m proud that the women of the
Senate have taken this issue head on. And what should never be lost in
the effort to enact the many changes that have been proposed, is that
for too long this was an issue that was simply swept under the rug.
That’s no longer the case.
“Thanks
to bipartisan cooperation, the work of thousands of dedicated
advocates, and the voices of countless victims who have bravely spoken
out -- we are poised to make a difference on an issue that women
everywhere have brought out of the shadows.”
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834
From the Senate, let's note the way the US government spends the money they collect in taxes. Kristina Wong (Washington Times) reports that while other countries are below poverty level and Iraq rakes in over $100 billion in oil, Iraq remains the target of charity. Specifically, there's a reconstruction fund that two countries are pulling out of -- but not the United States. And the US government gave Iraq $470 million of US tax payer dollars in Fiscal Year 2013 and, for Fiscal Year 2014, the US government plans to give $500 million. This has nothing to do with the $573 million dollar loan -- again these are US tax payer dollars -- the US government is granting Iraq to purchase military weapons.
There is some concern over all the US tax dollars being poured into Iraq. Last week, Brett McGurk, the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, appeared Wednesday before the US House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa (see last week's "Iraq snapshot," "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot").
US House Rep Brad Sherman: I want to focus on finances. How much money did we give Iraq this year? How much do they get from oil? And are they pumping oil as quickly as they can or are they constraining their production in accordance with OPEC rules?
Brett McGurk: In terms of money, we're not really giving Iraq much money at all anymore. Our assistance levels have gone down dramatically.
US House Rep Brad Sherman: But it's still well over a billion?
Brett McGurk: Uh, no. I believe that the most recent request is now of under a billion. It's gone from 1.5 billion last year to, uh, FY13 [Fiscal Year 2013] to about 880 million. And I can again brief you on the glide path in terms of our overall presence.
The actual request by the State Dept is $1.18 billion. What Wong's reporting on? It's in addition to that. So Wong's reporting $1.073 billion for Iraq in FY14 plus the $1.18 billion the State Dept is requesting for Iraq.
As we noted last week, Brett McGurk lied to Congress over and over.. Let's stay with that theme for a moment. Today the UNHCR issued the following:
The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) calls for renewed efforts from states to relocate former Camp Ashraf residents, also known as Camp New Iraq.
Since the 1 September 2013 attack on Camp New Iraq where 52 residents died, there has been limited progress in moving the remaining residents to a third country. UNHCR encourages all Member States to share in the international efforts, admit residents and offer them a long-term solution.
UNHCR and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) also call upon the Government of Iraq to take all possible measures to ensure the safety of the residents. UNHCR and UNAMI remain gravely concerned about the fate of seven missing individuals formerly residing in Camp New Iraq who disappeared on 1 September and call on the authorities to locate them, ensure their wellbeing and safeguard them against any forcible return.
Since 2011, UNHCR, together with UNAMI, has been engaged in an effort to find relocation opportunities outside Iraq for some 3,200 former residents of Camp New Iraq. In total, UNHCR has so far been able to secure the relocation to third countries of 300 residents.
As of September, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty. All remaining members of the
community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to
Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp
Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US
invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations
with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the
residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that
US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person
under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the
Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush
administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on
the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush
administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they
would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp
repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009
Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer
entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents,"
Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later,
on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at
least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six
residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They
were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor
health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011,
Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault
took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way,
"Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within
the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who
tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of
the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and
more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and
other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a
committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on
other occasions when the government has announced investigations into
allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the
authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions
whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't
the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were
labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of
Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva
Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.
3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah
for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other
countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was
attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of
Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls
terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an
Iraqi official release." They were attacked again September 1st. Adam Schreck (AP) reported
that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf
residents. In addition, 7 Ashraf residents were taken in the assault. This
month, in response to questions from US House Rep Sheila Jackson Lee,
the State Dept's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran Bureau of
Near Eastern Affairs, Brett McGurk, stated, "The seven are not in Iraq."
So today the UNHCR issues a call for action. It's by no means the first time they've done that and they'll do it again as needed. But we're not talking about the United Nations, we're talking about Brett McGurk and the US State Dept.
US House Rep Joseph Wilson: . . . but a real tragedy has been the
murders at Camp Ashraf. Since December 2008, when our government turned
over the protections of the camp to the Iraqi government, Prime
Minister Maliki has repeatedly assured the world that he would treat the
residents humanely and also that he would protect them from harm. Yet
it has not kept the promise promise as 111 people have been killed in
cold blood and more than a thousand wounded in five attacks including
the September 1st massacre, what is the United States doing to prevent
further attacks and greater loss of life in terms of ensuring the safety
and security of the residents
Brett McGurk: Congressman, first let me say thank you for your-your
service and your family's service. Speaking for myself and my team
who've spent many years in Iraq and have known many friends we've lost
in Iraq, it's something we think about every day and it inspires our
work and our dedication to do everything possible to succeed under very
difficult circumstances. Regarding Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty, the
only place for the MEK and the residents of Camp Liberty to be safe is
outside of Iraq. Camp Liberty is a former US military base We lost
Americans, right nearby there, as late as the summer of 2010. We lost a
number of Americans to rocket fire and indirect fire attacks and our
embassy compounds were the most secure facilities in the country as
late as the summer of 2010, that was when we had about 60,000 troops in
the country in the country doing everything that they possibly could do
to hunt down the rocket teams that we knew were targeting us. Uh, there
are cells in Iraq -- we believe directed and inspired from Iran --
which are targeting the MEK, there's no question about that. And the
only place for the MEK to be safe is outside of Iraq. That is why the
State Dept and the Secretary have appointed a colleague of mine,
Jonathan Winer, to work this issue full time. to find a place for them
to go. Right now, there's about 2900 residents at Camp Liberty and
Albania's taken in about 210, Germany's agreed to take in 100 and that's
it. We need to find a place for these - these people to go. It is an
urgent and humanitarian issue, an international humanitarian crisis.
And I went to the camp to meet with the survivors, to speak with the
families, and what they told me and I promised them to do everything I
possibly could to get them to safety. Uh, it is incumbent upon the
Iraqi government to do everything it possibly can to to keep them safe
-- and that means the T-walls and the sandbags and everything else. Uh,
but the only place for the residents to be safe is outside Iraq. Since
the tragic attacks at Camp Liberty on September 1st 1300 Iraqis were
killed, 52 people were massacred at Camp Ashraf. This was a tragic,
horrifying act. But since then, 1300 Iraqis in the country have been
killed. The country is incredibly dangerous and the MEK, to be safe,
have to leave Iraq and we want to find a place for them to go.
"It's an urgent and humanitarian issue, an international humanitarian crisis," insisted McGurk to Congress last week.
And the State Dept supposedly takes the issue seriously.
Supposedly.
It was the UNHCR fueling the conversation on the Ashraf community today. Not the State Dept. They issued no statement. They didn't even raise the issue at their press briefing today.
Or yesterday.
Or Friday.
Or Thursday.
Or Wednesday -- the day McGurk testified to Congress.
Or . . .
Do we see the pattern?
McGurk lies to Congress last week claiming that the US is providing leadership and raising awareness but it's done nothing on the most basic terms.
They only hired a person in the middle of September to oversee the issue in response to the over-fifty deaths and 7 kidnappings.
And, here's a little info the administration doesn't want the MEK thinking about, due to the Geneva obligations the US government owes to Camp Ashraf residents, the US government is now legally liable. It didn't honor international law -- law which the US signed onto -- so survivors of the dead can file charges -- international court would be the best place, since this is international law -- against the US government and so could the families of the kidnapped.
Considering the fact that the US government's reputation is mud on the world stage thanks to all the wars and all the illegal spying, international courts could be harsh on the US.
And when the US didn't provide security?
People probably grasp this because the law is so rarely reported on.
The US government is liable.
People get hurt all the time!
Yes, indeed they do.
But, under Geneva, the US was supposed to guarantee the safety of these people.
And the US government can't even argue human error, act of god or any other legal claims.
That's because the US stationed no one, not one person, to protect the residents. But that was the US obligation. And they failed to honor it and people died as a result.
That's a lot of money.
Most likely, the US would reject any legal finding -- which would just demonstrate, even more, to the global community that the US government has no respect for the law.
In other words, if I were MEK, I'd be looking for a lawyer to file charges right away.
To get rich? No. To force the US government to address the 7 hostages and get them out of harm's way.
And, FYI, the court to file in would, in fact be, the International Court of Justice. -- it has jurisdiction over Geneva issues.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's Iraq: Flooding and killing"
"USA Today misses the point of Odierno's comments"
"Eleanor Catton, Terry Teachout, Paul Harding and S..."
"Follow up on Cher"
"The Mindy Project"
"Food"
"revenge - the good"
"Bill Ayers wrote another book"
"The homophobia of People magazine"
"Margaret Flowers writes a must-read column"
"What apology?"
"Anjelica Huston on Fresh Air"
"A tale of multiple losers"
"More lies exposed"
"THIS JUST IN! DOES HE EVER TELL THE TRUTH?"
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
THIS JUST IN! DOES HE EVER TELL THE TRUTH?
BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
OBAMACARE CONTINUES TO BE A CON JOB. HEAVILY BACKED BY THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, CANDIDATE BARRY O GAVE LIP SERVICE TO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BUT NEVER MEANT TO DELIVER IT. (AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT COULD HAVE EXPANDED MEDICARE TO ALL AMERICANS, REGARDLESS OF AGE. HE WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN NEEDED CONGRESS.)
NOW MORE LIES ARE UNCOVERED.
LIKE THE REALITY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW LAST APRIL ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH SIGNING UP ONLINE FOR OBAMACARE.
THE LIES NEVER END WITH THE DAHLIBAMA OR HIS HELPERS.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Let's start with a 'reporter' -- one with tons of rumors about her. Nancy A. Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers among other things wants to critique Lara Logan.
Joan Rivers used to do a joke about Sophia Loren and a candy bar during WWII. That joke was applied repeatedly to Nancy by her peers during the Iraq War. When I heard it, I would say, "Yeah, it's Joan Rivers." (Toss a Hershey bar into her tent and she'll drop to all fours -- that's the spine of the joke.) And they would talk about how Nancy allegedly flirted with the military -- or allegedly more than flirted -- to explain her 'scoops.'
Which was always strange to me because Nancy had only one scoop her whole time in Iraq. (Given to her by Petraeus.)
But now the woman whose male and female peers called her so many names (everything but "reporter") thinks she has the clout to take on CBS News. (An ABC-er said today, "If she'd been stationed in Iran, we could have called her The Trampoline of Tehran." He said I should include that and should include it as anonymous -- "Though she'll know it's me" -- since Nancy's 'report' is nothing but anonymous sources.)
Rumors of her vast sexual antics to the side, how did she do with her analysis?
She writes:
The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound and made no mention of Ansar al Shariah, the Islamic extremist group that controls and provides much of the security in restive Benghazi and that has long been suspected in the attack. While the two organizations have worked together in Libya, experts said they have different aims – al Qaida has global objectives while Ansar al Shariah is focused on turning Libya into an Islamic state.
That does sound damning until you grasp that most of the press lumps Ansar al Shariah and al Qaeda together (because the two can be linked). We stand alone -- Nancy's never joined us, maybe that's good since I'd hate to be mistaken for a street whore -- in pointing out that the press blaming attacks in Iraq for "al Qaeda" is a catch-all that is false and blinds people to reality. Even confining it to al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not good enough, nor precise enough. But we've made that argument against all outlets -- that would include Nance's McClatchy Newspapers.
In other words, Nancy hopped a high horse to go after an easy target -- to decry what the bulk of the press -- including her own outlet -- does. "For shorthand" a correspondent insisted when we called it out here.
So no points for Nance on that.
Nancy then thinks she's found a stronger point:
Logan claimed that “it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault.” But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator. Rather, it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah,
Logan said it was "well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida" and Nancy proves her wrong by insisting that the belief is members of Al Qaida and other groups are thought to be responsible?
Does Nancy read what she writes? She's actually backed Lara Logan while she thinks she's disproved her. Logan didn't say "solely by al Qaida,' she said it was an al Qaida attack -- a point Nancy doesn't appear to grasp. Equally true, the WikiLeaks leak of State Dept cables ties one of the three suspects in Logan's report to al Qaeda. A point Nancy ignores. She ignores a great deal.
For example, Nancy 'disproves' Logan:
The piece also named three known insurgent operators as top suspects in the attack but did not explain the source of that assertion.
The three are long suspected of having been involved, Zelin said, but there is no evidence of their specific roles in the attack.
Two months ago, al Qaida operative Abu Anas al-Libi was captured in Tripoli by U.S. commandoes and brought to New York to stand trial for his alleged role in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The “60 Minutes” piece attempted to link al-Libi to the events in Benghazi, with Logan reporting that “Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi.”
But a U.S. law enforcement source involved in the Benghazi probe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss a case that’s still under investigation, told McClatchy this week that al-Libi is not under investigation for the Benghazi attacks. Logan did not detail the source for her assertion that he was.
Wow. That might be damning.
CBS and Lara Logan might need to apologize . . .
if Nancy were telling the truth but she's lying.
We're going to go to the transcript of the report. Ava and I covered this topic in "TV: Whose mistake?" -- for that, we worked CBS News friends for information -- some of which we've used, some of which we're saving for when someone really makes an idiot of themselves. Neither Ava nor I know Lara Logan or her producer Max McClellan. We do have many friends at CBS News and, to clarify, we haven't slept any of them. We were provided with a full transcript of the segment by CBS friends. From the transcript.
Lara Logan: We have learned the U.S. already knew that this man, senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. Al-Libi was already wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Greg Hicks: It was a frightening piece of information.
Lara Logan: Because it meant what?
Greg Hicks: It raised the stakes, changed the game.
[. . .]
Lara Logan: Just a few weeks ago, Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi. We've learned that this man, Sufian bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and long-time al Qaeda operative, was one of the lead planners along with Faraj al-Chalabi, whose ties to Osama bin Laden go back more than 15 years. He's believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al Qaeda in Pakistan.
Let's deal with what Nancy wrote about the government first. An unnamed government source who is not supposed to discuss the matter told her last week, two weeks after the segment aired, that Abu Anas al-Libi wasn't a suspect.
To which the obvious question is: Since when?
The second obvious question is: Where's the investigation?
By the government of Nancy's phone records.
Oh, that's right there is none.
Because authorized leaks -- often lies the government wants to spread -- don't outrage the White House.
For example, Savannah Luschei (Information Clearing House) reports on reporter James Risen's response to the targeting of him by the government:
But don't fret for Nancy. Those who repeat authorized administration leaks are never targeted.
So Nancy disproves Lara Logan and CBS by offering up an unnamed source who is legally compelled not to talk about the case (an ongoing investigation) but who breaks that legal obligation? That's a trust worthy source there, Nancy?
Doesn't sound like it to me but maybe Nancy can furnish further info on her source -- possibly his penis size? -- to explain why we should trust him as deeply as Nancy does?
Nancy 'disproves' suspect two by running to an 'expert' at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). I am happy to quote and critique them here. I've noted they're to the right of me. And that's really all I've noted because we don't exactly embrace them -- or present them as genuine experts. Since Nancy does, let's go to Wikiepedia for some of the criticism of Nancy's source:
In a December 2003 interview on Al Jazeera, Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor and director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, sharply criticized WINEP, stating that it is "the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims," and describing it as the "most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States."[15] In response, Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and visiting fellow at WINEP, defended the group, saying that it is "run by Americans, and accepts funds only from American sources," and that it was "outrageous" for Khalidi to denounce Arabs that visited WINEP as "blundering dupes."[16]
John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States.[17] Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda … Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."[17]
So a group not exactly trusted in the Arab world? That's Nancy's source for disproving suspect two? (Suspect two is the one WikiLeaks' release exposed as connected to al Qaeada according to the US State Dept.) To disprove suspect three . . . well even Nance finally admits she can't.
A Take down? She hasn't even raised valid questions?
Well, maybe one: Why is this woman employed?
For those who don't know, Nancy is the mouth piece for the US government -- and she has the metaphorical pubes stuck to her lips to prove it.
Which is why, for example, before Barack Obama declared Chelsea Manning guilty of crimes, Nancy had already done so -- repeatedly on The Diane Rehm Show. Nancy became McClatchy's Defense Correspondent because of her closeness -- however you want to define that -- to the military. When Petreaus was out of government, Nancy again became a foreign correspondent.
Nancy's entire output is worthless except for the last report she filed for Knight Ridder. In all the years since, she's had nothing to offer.
When the ethnic cleansing was taking place in Iraq, Nancy repeatedly was wrong or lied about what was taking place on Haditha Street in Baghdad. We called that out in real time. We call it out more loudly now because we've seen photos of what happened.
We've largely ignored the rumors about Nancy using sex to get stories. We danced closer to those rumors when we made it clear that she needed to stop declaring Chelsea Manning guilty since she was supposedly a reporter and no trial had been held. Nancy was, yet again, doing it for the military brass.
As she's repeatedly demonstrated, no one in the know would ever describe her as a reporter.
This is demonstrated in this passage by Youssef:
The piece closed with a picture of a document outlining Stevens’ schedule for Sept. 12, “a day (Stevens) did not live to see.” According to the piece, “When a member of our team went to the U.S. compound earlier this month, he found remnants of the Americans’ final frantic moments still scattered on the ground.”
But the compound owner, Jamal el Bishari, told McClatchy on Wednesday that he began clearing debris in April from the compound’s four buildings and is still renovating the site. McClatchy visited the site in June and saw a pile of debris sitting outside the compound walls, but no documents were discernible among the broken concrete, clothing, furniture and soot.
Bishari said it is unlikely such a document could have been discovered recently.
“It is impossible to find a document now,” he told McClatchy.
While it may or may not be possible to find a document on November 13th (when Nancy filed her 'report'), whether it was on October 5th or 6th is another matter.
As for McClatchy visiting the site in June, clearly the 'visitor' didn't go through what was available -- 'discernible' wouldn't be required if he or she had. But a larger point, Nancy doesn't trust or value the person enough to name them. It's not a reporter. It's a local. Knight-Ridder had a history of using locals for stories and paying them well. McClatchy, by contrast, is known for having lied to locals, misrepresented employment to locals and left them feeling alone and abandoned. You could ask some of the Iraqi workers, for example.
Nancy wants you to believe this is an issue she cares about. So she writes over 2,100 words yet never mentions the names: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith or Tyrone Woods.
Over 2,1000 words and she can't mention those three men.
That about says it all.
Maybe next time we'll talk about how someone imporperly influenced their outlet's coverage of the 'Arab Spring.'
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The never-grow-ups"
"Hejira"
"Palestinian Declaration of Independence (Francis A..."
"Feminist News Digest"
"Barzani, floods and Moqtada (things that expose No..."
"I Hate The War"
"Cher or Tuesday Weld?"
"The Mindy Project"
"WSWS sets the standard"
"revenge - the bad"
"Now they're not lying?"
"Goodbye Cher"
"Marjorie Cohn goes back to whoring"
"The Good Wife's bad episode"
"The never-ending propaganda"
"ObamaCare, hilarious comedy special, Tuesday Weld and more"
"He's a uniter!"
"THIS JUST IN! HE UNITES!"
OBAMACARE CONTINUES TO BE A CON JOB. HEAVILY BACKED BY THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, CANDIDATE BARRY O GAVE LIP SERVICE TO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE BUT NEVER MEANT TO DELIVER IT. (AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT COULD HAVE EXPANDED MEDICARE TO ALL AMERICANS, REGARDLESS OF AGE. HE WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN NEEDED CONGRESS.)
NOW MORE LIES ARE UNCOVERED.
LIKE THE REALITY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE KNEW LAST APRIL ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH SIGNING UP ONLINE FOR OBAMACARE.
THE LIES NEVER END WITH THE DAHLIBAMA OR HIS HELPERS.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Let's start with a 'reporter' -- one with tons of rumors about her. Nancy A. Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers among other things wants to critique Lara Logan.
Joan Rivers used to do a joke about Sophia Loren and a candy bar during WWII. That joke was applied repeatedly to Nancy by her peers during the Iraq War. When I heard it, I would say, "Yeah, it's Joan Rivers." (Toss a Hershey bar into her tent and she'll drop to all fours -- that's the spine of the joke.) And they would talk about how Nancy allegedly flirted with the military -- or allegedly more than flirted -- to explain her 'scoops.'
Which was always strange to me because Nancy had only one scoop her whole time in Iraq. (Given to her by Petraeus.)
But now the woman whose male and female peers called her so many names (everything but "reporter") thinks she has the clout to take on CBS News. (An ABC-er said today, "If she'd been stationed in Iran, we could have called her The Trampoline of Tehran." He said I should include that and should include it as anonymous -- "Though she'll know it's me" -- since Nancy's 'report' is nothing but anonymous sources.)
Rumors of her vast sexual antics to the side, how did she do with her analysis?
She writes:
The report repeatedly referred to al Qaida as solely responsible for the attack on the compound and made no mention of Ansar al Shariah, the Islamic extremist group that controls and provides much of the security in restive Benghazi and that has long been suspected in the attack. While the two organizations have worked together in Libya, experts said they have different aims – al Qaida has global objectives while Ansar al Shariah is focused on turning Libya into an Islamic state.
That does sound damning until you grasp that most of the press lumps Ansar al Shariah and al Qaeda together (because the two can be linked). We stand alone -- Nancy's never joined us, maybe that's good since I'd hate to be mistaken for a street whore -- in pointing out that the press blaming attacks in Iraq for "al Qaeda" is a catch-all that is false and blinds people to reality. Even confining it to al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not good enough, nor precise enough. But we've made that argument against all outlets -- that would include Nance's McClatchy Newspapers.
In other words, Nancy hopped a high horse to go after an easy target -- to decry what the bulk of the press -- including her own outlet -- does. "For shorthand" a correspondent insisted when we called it out here.
So no points for Nance on that.
Nancy then thinks she's found a stronger point:
Logan claimed that “it’s now well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida in a well-planned assault.” But al Qaida has never claimed responsibility for the attack, and the FBI, which is leading the U.S. investigation, has never named al Qaida as the sole perpetrator. Rather, it is believed a number of groups were part of the assault, including members and supporters of al Qaida and Ansar al Shariah,
Logan said it was "well established that the Americans were attacked by al Qaida" and Nancy proves her wrong by insisting that the belief is members of Al Qaida and other groups are thought to be responsible?
Does Nancy read what she writes? She's actually backed Lara Logan while she thinks she's disproved her. Logan didn't say "solely by al Qaida,' she said it was an al Qaida attack -- a point Nancy doesn't appear to grasp. Equally true, the WikiLeaks leak of State Dept cables ties one of the three suspects in Logan's report to al Qaeda. A point Nancy ignores. She ignores a great deal.
For example, Nancy 'disproves' Logan:
The piece also named three known insurgent operators as top suspects in the attack but did not explain the source of that assertion.
The three are long suspected of having been involved, Zelin said, but there is no evidence of their specific roles in the attack.
Two months ago, al Qaida operative Abu Anas al-Libi was captured in Tripoli by U.S. commandoes and brought to New York to stand trial for his alleged role in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The “60 Minutes” piece attempted to link al-Libi to the events in Benghazi, with Logan reporting that “Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi.”
But a U.S. law enforcement source involved in the Benghazi probe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss a case that’s still under investigation, told McClatchy this week that al-Libi is not under investigation for the Benghazi attacks. Logan did not detail the source for her assertion that he was.
Wow. That might be damning.
CBS and Lara Logan might need to apologize . . .
if Nancy were telling the truth but she's lying.
We're going to go to the transcript of the report. Ava and I covered this topic in "TV: Whose mistake?" -- for that, we worked CBS News friends for information -- some of which we've used, some of which we're saving for when someone really makes an idiot of themselves. Neither Ava nor I know Lara Logan or her producer Max McClellan. We do have many friends at CBS News and, to clarify, we haven't slept any of them. We were provided with a full transcript of the segment by CBS friends. From the transcript.
Lara Logan: We have learned the U.S. already knew that this man, senior al Qaeda leader Abu Anas al-Libi was in Libya, tasked by the head of al Qaeda to establish a clandestine terrorist network inside the country. Al-Libi was already wanted for his role in bombing two U.S. embassies in Africa.
Greg Hicks: It was a frightening piece of information.
Lara Logan: Because it meant what?
Greg Hicks: It raised the stakes, changed the game.
[. . .]
Lara Logan: Just a few weeks ago, Abu Anas al-Libi was captured for his role in the Africa bombings and the U.S. is still investigating what part he may have played in Benghazi. We've learned that this man, Sufian bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee and long-time al Qaeda operative, was one of the lead planners along with Faraj al-Chalabi, whose ties to Osama bin Laden go back more than 15 years. He's believed to have carried documents from the compound to the head of al Qaeda in Pakistan.
Let's deal with what Nancy wrote about the government first. An unnamed government source who is not supposed to discuss the matter told her last week, two weeks after the segment aired, that Abu Anas al-Libi wasn't a suspect.
To which the obvious question is: Since when?
The second obvious question is: Where's the investigation?
By the government of Nancy's phone records.
Oh, that's right there is none.
Because authorized leaks -- often lies the government wants to spread -- don't outrage the White House.
For example, Savannah Luschei (Information Clearing House) reports on reporter James Risen's response to the targeting of him by the government:
James Risen, the New York Times reporter facing imprisonment for
refusing to disclose his sources, denounced the federal
government’s infringement on the press in a rare public
appearance Thursday, saying it is time for journalists to
“surrender or fight.”
Risen
spoke to a crowd of about 300 lawyers, journalists and others at
Berdahl Auditorium in Stanley Hall on Thursday evening in a talk
hosted by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism titled
“Prosecuting the Press.” He spoke alongside Lowell Bergman,
director of the graduate school’s Investigative Reporting
Program.
The lack
of protection for national security reporters, he said, has
allowed the federal government to demand that journalists like
him reveal their sources, which threatens the integrity of the
press.
But don't fret for Nancy. Those who repeat authorized administration leaks are never targeted.
So Nancy disproves Lara Logan and CBS by offering up an unnamed source who is legally compelled not to talk about the case (an ongoing investigation) but who breaks that legal obligation? That's a trust worthy source there, Nancy?
Doesn't sound like it to me but maybe Nancy can furnish further info on her source -- possibly his penis size? -- to explain why we should trust him as deeply as Nancy does?
Nancy 'disproves' suspect two by running to an 'expert' at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). I am happy to quote and critique them here. I've noted they're to the right of me. And that's really all I've noted because we don't exactly embrace them -- or present them as genuine experts. Since Nancy does, let's go to Wikiepedia for some of the criticism of Nancy's source:
In a December 2003 interview on Al Jazeera, Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian-American professor and director of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, sharply criticized WINEP, stating that it is "the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims," and describing it as the "most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States."[15] In response, Martin Kramer, editor of the Middle East Quarterly and visiting fellow at WINEP, defended the group, saying that it is "run by Americans, and accepts funds only from American sources," and that it was "outrageous" for Khalidi to denounce Arabs that visited WINEP as "blundering dupes."[16]
John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States.[17] Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda … Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."[17]
So a group not exactly trusted in the Arab world? That's Nancy's source for disproving suspect two? (Suspect two is the one WikiLeaks' release exposed as connected to al Qaeada according to the US State Dept.) To disprove suspect three . . . well even Nance finally admits she can't.
A Take down? She hasn't even raised valid questions?
Well, maybe one: Why is this woman employed?
For those who don't know, Nancy is the mouth piece for the US government -- and she has the metaphorical pubes stuck to her lips to prove it.
Which is why, for example, before Barack Obama declared Chelsea Manning guilty of crimes, Nancy had already done so -- repeatedly on The Diane Rehm Show. Nancy became McClatchy's Defense Correspondent because of her closeness -- however you want to define that -- to the military. When Petreaus was out of government, Nancy again became a foreign correspondent.
Nancy's entire output is worthless except for the last report she filed for Knight Ridder. In all the years since, she's had nothing to offer.
When the ethnic cleansing was taking place in Iraq, Nancy repeatedly was wrong or lied about what was taking place on Haditha Street in Baghdad. We called that out in real time. We call it out more loudly now because we've seen photos of what happened.
We've largely ignored the rumors about Nancy using sex to get stories. We danced closer to those rumors when we made it clear that she needed to stop declaring Chelsea Manning guilty since she was supposedly a reporter and no trial had been held. Nancy was, yet again, doing it for the military brass.
As she's repeatedly demonstrated, no one in the know would ever describe her as a reporter.
This is demonstrated in this passage by Youssef:
The piece closed with a picture of a document outlining Stevens’ schedule for Sept. 12, “a day (Stevens) did not live to see.” According to the piece, “When a member of our team went to the U.S. compound earlier this month, he found remnants of the Americans’ final frantic moments still scattered on the ground.”
But the compound owner, Jamal el Bishari, told McClatchy on Wednesday that he began clearing debris in April from the compound’s four buildings and is still renovating the site. McClatchy visited the site in June and saw a pile of debris sitting outside the compound walls, but no documents were discernible among the broken concrete, clothing, furniture and soot.
Bishari said it is unlikely such a document could have been discovered recently.
“It is impossible to find a document now,” he told McClatchy.
While it may or may not be possible to find a document on November 13th (when Nancy filed her 'report'), whether it was on October 5th or 6th is another matter.
As for McClatchy visiting the site in June, clearly the 'visitor' didn't go through what was available -- 'discernible' wouldn't be required if he or she had. But a larger point, Nancy doesn't trust or value the person enough to name them. It's not a reporter. It's a local. Knight-Ridder had a history of using locals for stories and paying them well. McClatchy, by contrast, is known for having lied to locals, misrepresented employment to locals and left them feeling alone and abandoned. You could ask some of the Iraqi workers, for example.
Nancy wants you to believe this is an issue she cares about. So she writes over 2,100 words yet never mentions the names: Glen Doherty, Sean Smith or Tyrone Woods.
Over 2,1000 words and she can't mention those three men.
That about says it all.
Maybe next time we'll talk about how someone imporperly influenced their outlet's coverage of the 'Arab Spring.'
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The never-grow-ups"
"Hejira"
"Palestinian Declaration of Independence (Francis A..."
"Feminist News Digest"
"Barzani, floods and Moqtada (things that expose No..."
"I Hate The War"
"Cher or Tuesday Weld?"
"The Mindy Project"
"WSWS sets the standard"
"revenge - the bad"
"Now they're not lying?"
"Goodbye Cher"
"Marjorie Cohn goes back to whoring"
"The Good Wife's bad episode"
"The never-ending propaganda"
"ObamaCare, hilarious comedy special, Tuesday Weld and more"
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: The administration remains Nouri's dir...
- TV: People catch on
- Tweet of the Week
- From The TESR Test Kitchen
- Who did he meet with Friday?
- Photo of the week
- Washed out and washed up?
- He'll never get Palin's support
- The Queening of Clooney (Ava and C.I.)
- The Drone Goes on (Chris Fry)
- Gravity film review
- Highlights
"He's a uniter!"
"THIS JUST IN! HE UNITES!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)