Friday, January 02, 2015

THIS JUST IN! HE NEEDS A LIBRARY?


BULLY BOY PRESS &    CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS TRYING TO SORT OUT HIS LATEST PROBLEM: WHERE TO LOCATE HIS LIBRARY?

THERE ARE THOUGHT TO BE FOUR PLACES IN THE RUNNING BUT ALL RAISE CERTAIN ISSUES.

CHIEF AMONG THEM: CAN THEY GUARANTEE THE SAFETY OF EACH AND EVERYONE OF BARRY O'S COLORING BOOKS?  

HIS DISNEY PERIOD, WHERE HE RELIES CHIEFLY ON BLUE, IS THOUGHT TO BE HIS MOST AMBITIOUS.





If you ever questioned the proposition that US politicians are basically crooked and dishonest, let's note two people writing about Iraq today.


Jack A. Smith (Dissident Voice) offers:


The U.S. war against Iraq ended officially December 31, 2011, but it has now metamorphosed into Washington’s air war against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. There are increasing hints U.S. ground troops may be sent in this year. (3,000 American military advisers are already there and 1,500 allied troops are expected soon.)


We can all follow that.


And now here's nutty Dennis Kucinich, former US House Rep:
Establish a US Commission on Truth and Reconciliation. America was led into a war against Iraq, a war which killed over 1 million innocent Iraqis, a war which was based on every manner of deceit. In our name, and with our tax dollars, countless people were either killed, injured or tortured, their homes ruined, the land destroyed. It is time for Americans to know the truth about Iraq and other wars. Let us push Congress and the President to create a US Commission on Truth and Reconciliation.
We must require the highest level of accountability from those who have held the highest positions in our government. Lies which took us into war and established a national security state have separated us from each other, and from the world. Let us reunite in the spirit of truth and justice, seeking the moral high ground and a newer world.



Can Dennis just stop f**king around and lying.

There will not be -- in the next 20 years at least -- a US Commission on Truth and Reconciliation.  Why are you wasting people's time deceiving them?

There are things to focus on and your nonsense is not one of them.

You want a Truth Commission?  How about you tell the American people about the flight you took with Barack?  How about you explain how you got on that plane insisting you were sticking to your guns and not voting for ObamaCare but by the time you touched ground you were breaking your public promise?  Why don't you tell the American people about that conversation?

It would be illuminating.

Not just to show the world how self-serving you are, but to explain how politics in the US really work.

Dennis is a disgrace.  I've always felt that way.

Now he's writing of Iraq as if the illegal war is over.  That's offensive enough.

But he's lying to the American people as well.  A decision was made to go war on Iraq.  That wasn't -- though Dennis loves to pretend otherwise -- a decision of just Republicans or of just Republicans plus Hillary Clinton.

It's not going to happen.

And this gets to the core of why I despise Dennis.

In 2004, in Boston, as he let down his supporters -- which really is the constant thread in the public career of Dennis Kucinich -- a young woman approached me crying, feeling he betrayed her and the rest and I comforted by leading her (eventually) in a chant of "F**k Dennis Kucinich!"

Dennis is never serious, Dennis is a con artist.

His runs in the Democrat parties presidential primaries -- which, let's be clear, is not running for president, he's never run for president -- are fake.

They're an attempt to corral people into the Democratic Party (and keep them from going to the Green Party or elsewhere).  After his fake run,  Dennis gives his little fake ass speech, after denouncing the party, urging his supporters to support the Democratic Party.  He's a tiny valve intended to release steam and frustration before all of us on the left are supposed to join hands and march behind whomever the party's decided gets the nomination.

In 2008, Barack Obama 'won' Iowa.

After the early round of the caucus, Dennis instructed his followers to take their support to Barack.

At what point does that little bitch plan to take accountability for that?

I believe Barack's actions in Libya were illegal.  I called them out here. 

Dennis did so on Fox News.  But never took accountability for his role in promoting Barack Obama and helping to make him the nominee for the Democratic Party.

Dennis has never, ever run for president.

Don't believe the lies of Amy Goodman.

He's participated -- poorly -- in the Democratic Party's primaries.

Cynthia McKinney ran for president, Ralph Nader ran for president, H. Ross Perot ran for president, Barack ran for president, John McCain ran, etc.

But Dennis never ran for president.

The most he ever ran for was the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

There's a huge difference between that and running for president.

Look at any of his speeches when he repeatedly sought the party's nomination in one cycle after another.

Read the speeches and ask yourself, "If someone really believes that, why don't they run for president?"

Dennis is a fake ass.

He lives to distract.  Maybe because he's so nutty.  Maybe because that's the role he's assigned himself.

But he's worthless time and again.

If he wants to matter, it's not that hard.  Tell the truth about the plane ride.  Explain to Americans how you changed your mind on that plane ride.

He doesn't want to talk about the truth.

Talking about the truth might change the system.  It would certainly upset the apple cart.  So instead, he keeps lying and distracting.

At a certain point, his freak show doesn't even deliver snorts of derision.

At that point, he becomes an embarrassment that the world simply can't afford.

Dennis could have ended the Iraq War at any point.  Any member of the US Congress could have.  Former US Senator Mike Gravel told those truths and the response was John Edwards and Hillary Clinton caught on mike talking about how to purge certain people from the debates.




RECOMMENDED:  "2014 Self-Exposure"



Posted by at

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

THIS JUST IN! WHO PAID OFF THE POLLSTERS!

BULLY BOY PRESS &    CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE


NO WORD ON WHETHER CHARLES MANSON CAME IN THIRD.





Before we get to Iraq, Kia Makarechi (Vanity Fair) explains:

President Barack Obama declared the 13-year war in Afghanistan officially over on Sunday, praising the troops and claiming that Americans are safer for their efforts. In Kabul, General John Campbell folded the flag of the International Security Assistance Force, and unfurled the flag of a new mission, Resolute Support.
But while the administration would like to characterize this as a victory, the end of a conflict, it’s more of a re-branding. More than 10,000 United States troops will remain in Afghanistan, and just over one month ago, the president secretly expanded their 2015 combat mission to include fighting with the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, or other insurgent groups. The expansion of duties, which was first reported in The New York Times, also allows for the use of American manned aircraft and drones. Some 4,000 NATO troops will also remain in Afghanistan next year.


If only there'd been that kind of honesty with regard to the Iraq drawdown -- which didn't end the war and, look around, hasn't ended US military involvement in Iraq.

At today's US State Dept press briefing, moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke, the following exchange took place.


QUESTION: Okay. So first on Iraq, yesterday, General Allen told Der Spiegel that an Iraqi ground offensive will occur when the time is right. What is your current assessment of Iraqi forces, and do you have an update – a timetable for any kind of ground offensive? And a separate one on Russia/Syria.


MR. RATHKE: Well, of course we are engaged with Iraqi forces to help improve their capacity. We’ve already seen Iraq take the initiative in places like Sinjar, where now the siege has been broken, and in a variety of other places where they have taken the fight to ISIL. I’m not going to get ahead of their decisions about further military activity, of course. That’s – that is something that one wouldn’t want to telegraph, and it’s also a question for the Iraqis to decide first and foremost.



Well that's good to know.

Better to know would be reality.

It wasn't the Iraqi military that "we've already seen . . . take the initiative in places like Sinjar."  Sinjar was the Peshmerga.  They are not part of the Iraqi army.  They are the Kurdish elite force trained and based in the Kurdistan Region (northern Iraq) and answerable to the Kurdish government.

That's reality.

The US government knows it -- Rathke damn well should -- because there have been stand offs regarding disputed areas in Iraq -- stands offs between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi army.

Do you think just because the US government pretends otherwise -- and because some stupid people in the US nod along -- either side in Iraq has forgotten it?

They haven't.

The Peshmerga has always had their act together.

When Shi'ite militias became a recognizable problem in Baghdad, the Kurds offered to send the Peshmerga in.  Baghdad didn't want that, the Shi'ite government in charge of Iraq did not want that.

But from the beginning of the Iraq War, the only functioning military in Iraq has been the Peshmerga.

I don't understand how pretending that reality hasn't taken place helps anyone.

Now the Iraqi military has had some limited successes -- both with the help of the Peshmerga and all by themselves.  But what happens after?

Isabel Coles (Reuters) reports:

Like dozens of other communities in Iraq, this small Sunni settlement in northern Salahuddin province’s Tuz Khurmatu district has been reduced to rubble. In October, Shia militiamen and Kurdish peshmerga captured the village from the Sunni militant group ISIS. The victors then laid it to waste, looting anything of value and setting fire to much of the rest. Residents have still not been allowed to return.
“Our people are burning them,” said one of the Shia militiamen when asked about the smoke drifting up from still smouldering houses. Asked why, he shrugged as if the answer was self-evident.


Well, it's something.

It's nothing you can build on.

It's something only fool would bill as a "success."

But it's something -- something very disturbing and troubling..


And that destruction taking place on a smaller scale it mirrored by the nonstop bombings of Iraq, from the air, that the US is leading.


RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
 
  • "THIS JUST IN! MAYBE YOU DON'T GOTTA HAVE THESE FRIENDS?"
  • "Look who's standing up for him now"
  • "Dirty Debbie"

  •  
    • Posted by at

    Sunday, December 28, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! MAYBE YOU DON'T GOTTA HAVE THESE FRIENDS?

    BULLY BOY PRESS &    CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O STILL HAS A FEW FRIENDS LEFT.


    BARRY BONDS TOOK TIME OUT FROM, PRESUMABLY, FILING A NEW APPEAL TO HIS LATEST FAILED APPEAL TO OVERTURN HIS CONVICTION, IN ORDER TO SEND BARRY O A CHRISTMAS GREETING.

    WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE . . . BARRY O'S LOOKING LIKE A REAL LOSER.





    The Washington Post's David Ignatius looks back on 2014 in terms of Iraq in a column which notes, "The problem, the tribal leader argued, was that because the United States was working so closely with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, Sunnis in Anbar doubted there was any U.S. commitment to giving them more power. Without this political commitment, weapons and even Apache gunships would be of little use."

    He's referring to Sahwa.

    Also known as "Awakening," "Sons of Iraq" (and it's female counterpart "Daughters of Iraq").

    Sahwa's a complex issue that many want to turn simplistic.  I'm not referring to David Ignatius, I'm referring to cheerleaders on various sides.

    Sahwa was a US government plan to get Sunnis fighters -- resistance -- to big-tent it in Iraq.

    By 2007, the Awakening movement was finally getting traction.

    However, for over a year prior the US government repeatedly claimed success there when there was no success and many in the press ran with articles about this great new movement that did not exist.

    On great.  Some tribal leaders were like any other people on the face of the earth -- the mixture of positive attributes and faults.  But equally true, some leaders of Sahwa -- at least two noted ones -- were mafia.  Iraqi mafia.  One, in fact, making big money in the cement industry.

    That's part of it too and you can't talk about the history and be dishonest.

    That's the leadership. 

    David Petraeus was a US general who was the top commander in Iraq. By 2008, a number of things were going on in Iraq resulting in a reduction of violence.

    Sahwa was one component.  Another was the 'surge.' 

    The 'surge' is something I have a real problem with.  As late as 2010, I could hear someone on my side (the left) talk about the surge and dismiss it completely and think we could disagree and that was that.  But the reality is, as the years have shown since, this is not an area where people are honest or thoughtful.  This is a knee-jerk area with a lot of uninformed stupid people.  If that seems simplistic, so does, in 2014, saying "The surge didn't work!"

    I opposed the surge, check the archives.  I called it out when it was proposed.  I called it out when it was started.  I said it would be a failure.


    I was half-wrong and I was half-right.

    The surge was two parts.

    (1) Bully Boy Bush was greatly increasing the number of US troops in Iraq and (2) this was being done so that a 'diplomatic surge' would take place -- violence would be reduced and the US troops would be leading on that to allow the Iraqi politicians to focus on the always spoken of but never achieved "political solutions."

    The US military did what they were tasked with.

    They succeeded.

    I don't know why some on my side have a problem admitting that. 

    Check the archives, I said it wouldn't happen.  I was wrong.  I have no problem admitting that.

    But part one, the success, was supposed to create the space for part two and that never happened.

    This is a really important point because it's not just history from a few years back, it applies to today when Barack Obama is doing the same thing that Bully Boy Bush did, focusing on the military aspect and just assuming the political will fall into place all by itself.

    At any rate, the reduction in violence came about for three reasons.  The surge and Sahwa were two of those reasons.  The third reason was ethnic cleansing.

    Many still want to call it a civil war.

    It wasn't and we didn't play like it was in real time.

    Baghdad was 'cleansed' and went from an integrated city to one that is predominately Shi'ite.

    The bulk of the external refugees of this period were Sunnis.  The bulk of the dead were Sunnis.

    You can play it off as 'civil war' for however many decades before you're comfortable admitting the US government's role in it. 

    But that's why violence began to decrease: Sahwa, the surge (the military aspect, the only success) and ethnic cleansing.

    The reduction in violence was such a success that it distracted from the political failures which included Nouri al-Maliki -- then prime minister of Iraq and forever thug -- being unable to meet the White House defined benchmarks for success (which Nouri agreed to and signed off on).

    To sell the continuation of the illegal war, April 2008 offered a week of  The Petraeus and Crocker Show, where the then top-US commander in Iraq Petraeus and then-US Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified to Congress repeatedly.  By focusing on violence, they tricked the bulk of Congress (or maybe the bulk of Congress was in on the con? -- certainly some were) into talking about that and ignoring the lack of progress on the political front.  (US House Rep Lloyd Doggett was the only one who, that entire week, used his questioning time to bring up the issue of the failed political benchmarks).  We were at all the hearings that week and we'll drop back to April 8, 2008 for  that day's snapshot:



    Today The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour took their act on the road.  First stop, the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to be providing a status report on the Iraq War.  They didn't.  In fact, Petraeus made clear that the status report would come . . . next September.  When the results are this bad, you stall -- which is exactly what Petraeus did. 
     The most dramatic moment came as committee chair Carl Levin was questioning Petraeus and a man in the gallery began exclaiming "Bring them home!" repeatedly.  (He did so at least 16 times before he was escored out).  The most hilarious moment was hearing Petraeus explain that it's tough in the school yard and America needs to fork over their lunch money in Iraq to avoid getting beat up.  In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads.  These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts."  Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up. 
    How much lunch money is the US forking over?  Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars).  By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month.  $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost".  Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies.  What a [proud] moment for the country.

    Crocker's entire testimony can be boiled down to a statement he made in his opening statements, "What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible."  Which would translate in the real world as nothing has really changed.  During questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Crocker would rush to shore up the "Awakening" Council members as well.  He would say there were about 90,000 of them and, pay attention, the transitioning of them is delayed due to "illliteracy and physical disabilities."  


    Sahwa was paid to stop attacking US equipment and US troops -- that was the order Petraeus repeatedly gave that week and where he placed the emphasis.

    Could the movement exist without buy-offs?

    If the payments stopped would the movement stop?

    In 2008, I believed it wouldn't.

    I was hugely wrong.

    During that week, Senator Barbara Boxer noted the millions being spent on this program and wondered why the US government was footing the bill and not the oil-rich government of Iraq?

    This took both Petraeus and Crocker by surprise and, realizing they a potential nightmare on their hands, they basically rewrote policy while testifying by insisting they could and would raise that with the Iraqi government.

    Which was Nouri.

    Nouri loved Iraqi money.  Loved it so much, he took it home and played with it.  Also known as embezzlement and theft.

    But while he'd grab it for himself (and for his crooked son), he wasn't keen on using it to better Iraq.  Which is why there was no improvement to Iraq's crumbling public infrastructure under Nouri -- despite his serving 8 years as prime minister. 

    He also didn't want to pay Sahwa.

    But, more than money, his problem was that they were Sunnis.

    When the US insisted on coward Nouri in 2006 -- insisted he become prime minister because the CIA analysis on Nouri argued his paranoia would make him an easily controlled puppet -- they pretty much doomed the country.  (Barack sealed the doom by insisting, in 2010, that Nouri get a second term as prime minister even after he lost the election to Ayad Allawi.)

    Nouri was back in Iraq not out of love for the country.  Love didn't cause the coward to flee either.  He hated Sunnis and he wanted revenge.

    And though he was being told by the US government that he'd have to pay Sahwa and that he'd have to incorporate them into the Iraqi forces and into the Iraqi government, he had no intention of doing so.

    And, in the end, he didn't.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"







    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)