A VERY DEPRESSED ROBERT PARRY CONTINUES TO BE A PATIENT AT THE SIBLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.
BUT WHILE THE ONE TIME JOURNALIST WHO CLAIMED TO BE THE MISTRESS OF FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O WENT TO THE HOSPITAL SUNDAY TO GIVE BIRTH TO WHAT HE SAID WAS THE CHILD OF THE PRESIDENT, THINGS HAVE GONE DIFFERENTLY THAN EXPECTED.
"IMPACTED COLON" IS WHAT HOSPITAL SOURCES TELL THESE REPORTERS.
PARRY WAS NEVER WHAT ANYONE WOULD CALL SKINNY, OR SLIM, OR EVEN STOCKY. HE WAS ALWAYS A BIG GUY.
AND HIS GIRTH HAD INCREASED OVER THE LAST MONTHS -- BUT DUE TO AN IMPACTED COLON, NOT PREGNANCY.
PARRY IS SAID TO BE DEPRESSED, ON BED REST AND DEMANDING TO EITHER SEE BARRY O OR ELSE BE SERVED "SEVERAL" ICE CREAM CAKES "TO NURSE THE PAIN."
WHAT IS KNOWN IS THAT PARRY IS NOT PREGNANT.
NOR WAS EVER PREGNANT.
PARRY WAS JUST FULL OF S**T -- APPARENTLY MORE SO THAN USUAL.
If you're the Christian Science Monitor, you can't do actual reporting so you have to find 'click bait.' You can read the latest garbage from the paper by clicking here and going to Yahoo (thereby not giving CSM a click for their 'click bait').
A busy body by the name of Richard Brunt wonders -- from Canada -- what were Americans thinking last Tuesday?
I believe I've said this already but tend to your own gardens.
I really don't give a s**t what some Canadian thinks of American elections.
I don't make a point to stick my nose into their elections.
But for someone that thinks something awful took place, exactly how long is Canada going to keep conservative Stephen Harper on as prime minister?
And are you ever going to get off your lazy asses and demand that asylum be granted to War Resisters?
And what about fracking? Isn't that your leading export of late: Socially damaging policies?
Speaking of, how far along have you gotten with regards to addressing the very real complaints of indigenous peoples in Canada?
You just want to talk about how "groovy" you think Barack Obama looks in sun glasses?
Well just because you're letting the precum pool in your pants doesn't mean you need to share your erotic fantasies with the rest of us.
Brunt's so busy jizzing while moaning Barack, he actually writes, "Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq."
For example, he brought these two home last month -- in body bags.
That's Lance Cpl. Sean P. Neal (photo from Facebook). We noted his death in October 25th snapshot.
That's Cpl Jordan Spears (photo from Marine Corps). Last month, he was reclassified as the first death in 'Operation Inherent Resolve.'
Apparently, Brunt's been too busy jacking off to light bondage fantasies of Barack disciplining him to pay attention to actual events in the real world -- including the fact that 'Operation Inherent Resolve' has already claimed the lives of 2 American service members.
While Brunt sees accomplishments worth bragging of, the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman seems less inclined to shine it on, "The United States is still involved in a 13-year-old war in Afghanistan, and President Barack Obama has undertaken a new one against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, just three years after he withdrew the last of our troops from Iraq. The administration is also carrying on a drone missile campaign -- which looks eerily like war from the receiving end -- in Pakistan and Yemen."
Brunt also seem to forget that his own government is taking part in the bombing of Iraq.
Maybe if he spent a little less time trying to trash the American people for how they voted (or not voted -- most Americans eligible to vote elected not to vote in last Tuesday's elections), he'd be able to effect some change in his own government?
Or at least not appear so pathetic and envious that he obsesses over his neighbors instead of living his own life.
Or ignorant of what's going on in Iraq, how the Iraqi people continue to suffer and how Barack keeps sending in more US troops.
What Brunt avoids, Jon Stewart took on in tonight's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Comedy Central). Excerpt:
US President Barack Obama September 18th: I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil
Jon Stewart: Yes! If American troops are going to be fighting, they're going to be fighting on our soil! Against . . . Wait a minute. It's comforting to hear our president say on national television there will be no combat troops in Iraq.
News Anchor, November 7th: Today, President Obama authorized the deployment of 1,500 more US troops to Iraq to help with the fight against ISIS.
Scott Pelley, November 7th: With this expansion, the number authorized has grown from 275 in June to 3100 tonight.
Jon Stewart: What the f[bleep]! You said no troops in Iraq! And in five months we've increased the number of US troops in Iraq by ten times. At this rate, by 2016, everyone in the world will be in Iraq fighting ISIS! We're going to have to recruit people from ISIS to fight ISIS. And those troops are boots on the ground! You said no boots on the ground! The ground would get no boots!
Barack, September 18th: The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission in Iraq. Their mission is to advise and assist our partners on the ground.
Jon Stewart: Oh, I'm sorry, that's my mistake. I'm sorry. So it's not 3,000 troops, it's 3,000 advisors. Okay. Well, you know, that's a lot of advice.
Even Democracy Now! addressed Barack's decision to deploy more US troops to Iraq (link is text, audio and video):
AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more, we go to Raleigh, North Carolina, where we’re joined by Matthew Hoh, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, former State Department official who resigned in protest from his post in Afghanistan over the U.S. policy there in September 2009. Prior to his assignment in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh served in Iraq. From 2004 to ’05, he worked with a State Department reconstruction and governance team in Salah ad-Din province. And from 2006 to ’07, he worked as a Marine Corps company commander in Anbar province.
Matthew Hoh, welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you share your response to the increased boots on the ground?
MATTHEW HOH: Hi, good morning, and thank you for having me on. My response is, as many people, I think, in the United States, scratching their head and wondering: What are we doing? What does the United States government really think it’s going to accomplish by putting more American troops into the middle of the Iraqi civil war and into the middle of the Syrian civil war, particularly coming off of 13 years of war in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Somalia, in Yemen, etc.? So, my response, Amy, is more or less the same as most people’s, of a—very concerned and, you know, lack of a better phrase, this is crazy.
AMY GOODMAN: Speaking to CBS’s Face the Nation, President Obama insisted U.S. troops will focus on training Iraqis to fight ISIS and coordinating airstrikes, rather than engaging in active combat.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: What hasn’t changed is, our troops are not engaged in combat. Essentially what we’re doing is we’re taking four training centers, with coalition members, that allow us to bring in Iraqi recruits, some of the Sunni tribes that are still resisting ISIL, giving them proper training, proper equipment, helping them with strategy, helping them with logistics. We will provide them close air support once they are prepared to start going on the offense against ISIL. But what we will not be doing is having our troops do the fighting.
AMY GOODMAN: President Obama refused to rule out further increases in U.S. troops in Iraq.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: As commander-in-chief, I’m never going to say never, but what, you know, the commanders who presented the plan to me say is that we may actually see fewer troops over time, because now we’re seeing coalition members starting to partner with us on the training and assist effort.
AMY GOODMAN: That is President Obama on CBS’s Face the Nation. Matthew Hoh, do you believe what he’s saying?
MATTHEW HOH: No, I don’t. And I think it’s very easy for us to revisit this in a few months’ time, just as now we’re revisiting this from several months ago, and see the increase, the graduation of entry of American forces back into the conflict. But I think it’s a slippery slope—excuse me—and that very quickly this will spin out of control for the United States. What happens when American troops are killed? What happens when we lose several young men to a suicide bomber? How is the president going to react to that? How is the United States going to react when our troops are in combat and we only have 3,000? And the president, who can’t seem to face down the same critics in Congress who are always demanding for war, the John McCains and Lindsey Graham, how is he going to face them down then, if he can’t face them down now? So, I don’t believe his words, and I think that this is going to be the beginning of an unfortunate and tragic re-entry of America back into this civil war.
Reuters reports, "The United States has deployed a team of about 50 troops to an air base in Iraq's fiercely contested Anbar province to lay the groundwork for an advisory mission at the core of its campaign against Islamic State militants, officials said on Monday." All Iraq News quotes Sha'aban al-Obaidi, Commander of the Emergency Police, declaring, "The US trainers arrived at Assad Military Base in Anbar and met with the security leaders."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- Truest statement of the week III
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Further into Iraq
- TV: The Littlest League on Basic Cable
- The Comedic Stylings of Valerie Jarrett
- Film Classics of the 20th Century
- From The TESR Test Kitchen
- This edition's playlist
- On Wendy Davis . . .
- FACT SHEET: The Administration’s Strategy to Count...
- Memorial for audacious GI union leader (Deirdre Gr...
- The Sensory War: Powerful exhibition showing there...