BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O SNARLED TO THESE REPORTERS, "IT'S OVER WHEN I SAY IT'S OVER! I WILL NOT BE IGNORED!"
If you're a cross-eyed loser with a douche goatee, you learn to lie to yourself daily. But that still doesn't excuse Michael Cohen lying to the rest of us. In a column for The Daily Beast, Little Mikey attacks because that's what fat bitches do when the objects of their lust are in trouble. That's how Michael came to blame not Barack but the American people for Barack's lie that "If you like your health care you can keep your health care." I really don't like overgrown children who masturbate in public and pretend like they've made a logical argument.
Like an incontinent beast, Cohen just sprays all over the floor:
When Panetta became CIA director in 2009, he was demonstrably unqualified for the job. He had no background in foreign policy, intelligence or national security. His most apparent and highly-touted skill was that he understood his way around bureaucratic Washington.
I'm sorry, a member of the US military has no background in foreign policy, intelligence or national security?
A First Lieutenant in the Army has no background in foreign policy, intelligence or national security?
I'm sorry what was Leon Panetta doing at Fort Ord?
Oh, that's right, intelligence.
Cohen's such a sad little man.
Panetta dared to criticize Barack Obama and that's too much for Cohen.
So he damns Panetta for . . . advocating for a big budget for the Defense Dept when he headed the Defense Dept and for advocating for a bigger budget for the CIA when he headed the CIA.
These are not shocking developments but the natural aspect of the job.
Cohen lies throughout and deliberately distorts Panetta's remarks and statements.
The reason for that is, Cohen's point is to ensure that no one explore what Panetta's arguing.
Cohen wants to shut him down, wants to destroy him.
People like Cohen do the world no good at all.
He can string together words but he can't actually write and his plodding prose is an embarrassment.
He can't present ideas or even repeat them.
His thinking is simplistic and infantile.
Panetta favors US troops in Iraq.
I don't.
Panetta believes that US troops on the ground will assist Barack's (thus far faltering) military operation.
I've seen this before, we all have, Bully Boy Bush did it with the 'surge.'
With the 'surge' -- as with Barack's 'plan' -- the focus was on the toys not on the work. Both men see/saw the US military as toy soldiers to be played with.
Both men swore a political solution was the answer but couldn't stop playing war games and do the damn work required to get to a political solution.
Putting US troops on the ground in Iraq -- and, yes, they already are -- is putting their lives in danger.
Why?
For a political solution that the administration wants but can't define and refuses to work towards?
US troops will do their mission -- they did during the surge -- and it will be for naught because Barack's got no plan for how a political solution comes about.
Troops will be used, as they were by Bully Boy Bush, to defocus from the real issues.
That's misusing the military.
I'd argue it's grounds for impeachment.
Panetta would argue that US troops on the ground will make a difference because you'll not just be causing scattering by bombing but you'll have forces on the ground to fight, round up, capture, etc in the aftermath of bombing.
And I'll gladly allow Panetta's points may be accurate.
Yet none of that provides a political solution for Iraq.
And so why is the US military being (mis)used?
There is no military solution in Iraq -- even Barack admits to that. Barack repeatedly states the situation requires a political answer.
So how about you figure out how that comes about?
Instead, Barack wastes time getting more nations to agree to bomb Iraq.
John Pilger (Independent of Australia) observes, "As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger’s murderous honesty."
If bombing is the point, the US military can bomb Iraq over and over for years. There's no need to round up other nations.
I can take on Leon's points. (And can and have done so face to face -- I know and like Leon.)
Cohen can't.
And won't.
Because he exists solely to worship Barack Obama.
There is nothing more disgusting than a teacher's pet and that's only more true after the age of 20.
Tomorrow, Michael Cohen will probably work on attacking the American people (again) and attacking Jimmy Carter. Justin Sink (The Hill) reveals the fairy tales are losing their luster with the American people:
Some 51 percent of respondents in the CBS News poll released Wednesday said they disapprove of the job the president is doing with the radical jihadist group, while just four in 10 approved. Those numbers are slightly worse than a month ago, when 48 percent disapproved of how Obama was approaching the situation.
Among those disapproving? Former US President Jimmy Carter. Cheryl K. Chumley (Washington Times) explains, "Former president Jimmy Carter took a harsh jab at President Obama this week, telling the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that the commander-in-chief dragged his feet on confronting Islamic State terrorism."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Kurds"
