BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
MICHAEL JORDAN GIFTED BARRY WITH A PERSONALLY SIGNED POSTER.
GUESS WHAT?
HE SPELLED BARRY'S FIRST NAME WITH 1 "R" TOO MANY.
AND WHEN JORDAN WASN'T AROUND, BARRY O BASICALLY SAID, "GET THIS S**T AWAY FROM ME!"
SO THE GIFT FOR BARRY O ENDED UP WITH DAVID AXELHEAD.
Today Jordan's Queen Raina Al Abdullah addressed a summit in Dubai via videolink. Petra quotes her stating of the Islamic State:
The Muslim is the man they murdered. The one who observed the pillars of his faith; who honored his parents; and served his country. A man [slaughtered Jordanian pilot Muath Al-Kasabeh] who made it his mission to defend his country and his faith -- a mission he lived and died by. [. . .] We are in a race against time to adopt policies that address the priorities which confront us today: most importantly, to eliminate the ideology of hate and terrorism, not just militarily, but ideologically as well.
Also today, her husband, King Abdullah II, met with US President Barack Obama's Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State, Gen John Allen. AFP notes:
“There will be a major counter offensive on the ground in Iraq,” John Allen, the chief envoy for the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group, said in an interview with Jordan’s official Petra news agency.
“In the weeks ahead, when the Iraqi forces begin the ground campaign to take back Iraq, the coalition will provide major firepower associated with that,” he added, stressing that the Iraqis would lead the offensive.
Allen's remarks were an issue raised at today's US State Dept press briefing where spokesperson Jen Psaki faced questions from Al Quds' Said Arikat.
QUESTION: I just wanted to start where you began at the top --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- about General Allen.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: He gave statements yesterday basically suggesting that an assault, a ground assault maybe, is imminent. Could you clarify that?
MS. PSAKI: That’s not actually what he said, Said.
QUESTION: Okay. Well --
MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to – I believe I have his quote in here somewhere, so let me check on that. One, I think any military action that would be taken in Iraq to address the threat of ISIL would be led by the Iraqi Security Forces. Obviously, they’re – continue to be in the training phase, and it remains our belief that they need to be ready.
Let me just pull up, I believe I have it in here, what exactly General Allen said. He said, “And in the weeks ahead when the Iraqi forces begin the ground campaign to take back Iraq, the coalition will provide major firepower associated with that.” So the Arab component will be in action supporting Iraqi Security Forces. We support their efforts. They would be in the lead. We want them to be prepared. I don’t have any other predictions beyond that.
QUESTION: But the message there is that second attack is imminent, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I did not hear it or read it that way, and that is not what he was conveying.
QUESTION: Okay. The reason I’m asking this, because there has been talk about a spring offensive to liberate Mosul, and this has been going on for a long time. But then exactly 10 days ago or so, General Lloyd Austin, commander of the central command, said that that was not the case. He was – basically described that there is no coordination between the Peshmerga forces and the Iraqi forces, all of the different forces that need to be involved in any kind of ground assault to liberate Mosul, hence the confusion. So would you say now this confusion has been cleared?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there has been coordination. I don’t know what quote you’re referencing, but that’s inaccurate and not reflective of all of the coordination that’s happening. Obviously, the Department of Defense and the Government of Iraq would be the most appropriate entities to talk about operational planning; they don’t typically outline that publicly. So again, we’re working with them, we want them to be ready. Beyond that, I don’t have any predictions of additional next steps.
QUESTION: And finally from my side, also General Allen said – put the blame squarely on the former government of Nouri al-Maliki for the collapse of the Iraqi army back in June of last year, and then when Mosul fell to ISIS fighter. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, as we know, Said, and we’ve talked about a bit in here, there were – there was a lack of preparedness, certainly, by the security forces; many were taken by surprise. We talked about that quite extensively last winter. And there’s no question that we have encouraged, many countries in the region have encouraged Prime Minister Abadi to operate in a different way and to be more inclusive of the Sunni tribes, be more inclusive about how he is overseeing the building of the military. So I don’t think anything should come as a surprise in that regard.
You have to feel sorry for Jen Psaki and Marie Harf. August 8th, Barack Obama's 'plan' kicked off with bombings. The US planes -- and others in the coalition -- continue to bomb Iraq.
And it's really made no visible impact at all.
Yet they're expected to spin it as a success and as a plan.
There has been no success. The editorial board of the Washington Post points out that the White House attempts to sell the 'answer' as a national guard in Iraq but there's still no national guard:
“In the weeks ahead, when the Iraqi forces begin the ground campaign to take back Iraq, the coalition will provide major firepower associated with that,” he added, stressing that the Iraqis would lead the offensive.
Allen's remarks were an issue raised at today's US State Dept press briefing where spokesperson Jen Psaki faced questions from Al Quds' Said Arikat.
QUESTION: I just wanted to start where you began at the top --
MS. PSAKI: Okay.
QUESTION: -- about General Allen.
MS. PSAKI: Yes.
QUESTION: He gave statements yesterday basically suggesting that an assault, a ground assault maybe, is imminent. Could you clarify that?
MS. PSAKI: That’s not actually what he said, Said.
QUESTION: Okay. Well --
MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to – I believe I have his quote in here somewhere, so let me check on that. One, I think any military action that would be taken in Iraq to address the threat of ISIL would be led by the Iraqi Security Forces. Obviously, they’re – continue to be in the training phase, and it remains our belief that they need to be ready.
Let me just pull up, I believe I have it in here, what exactly General Allen said. He said, “And in the weeks ahead when the Iraqi forces begin the ground campaign to take back Iraq, the coalition will provide major firepower associated with that.” So the Arab component will be in action supporting Iraqi Security Forces. We support their efforts. They would be in the lead. We want them to be prepared. I don’t have any other predictions beyond that.
QUESTION: But the message there is that second attack is imminent, correct?
MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I did not hear it or read it that way, and that is not what he was conveying.
QUESTION: Okay. The reason I’m asking this, because there has been talk about a spring offensive to liberate Mosul, and this has been going on for a long time. But then exactly 10 days ago or so, General Lloyd Austin, commander of the central command, said that that was not the case. He was – basically described that there is no coordination between the Peshmerga forces and the Iraqi forces, all of the different forces that need to be involved in any kind of ground assault to liberate Mosul, hence the confusion. So would you say now this confusion has been cleared?
MS. PSAKI: Well, there has been coordination. I don’t know what quote you’re referencing, but that’s inaccurate and not reflective of all of the coordination that’s happening. Obviously, the Department of Defense and the Government of Iraq would be the most appropriate entities to talk about operational planning; they don’t typically outline that publicly. So again, we’re working with them, we want them to be ready. Beyond that, I don’t have any predictions of additional next steps.
QUESTION: And finally from my side, also General Allen said – put the blame squarely on the former government of Nouri al-Maliki for the collapse of the Iraqi army back in June of last year, and then when Mosul fell to ISIS fighter. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, as we know, Said, and we’ve talked about a bit in here, there were – there was a lack of preparedness, certainly, by the security forces; many were taken by surprise. We talked about that quite extensively last winter. And there’s no question that we have encouraged, many countries in the region have encouraged Prime Minister Abadi to operate in a different way and to be more inclusive of the Sunni tribes, be more inclusive about how he is overseeing the building of the military. So I don’t think anything should come as a surprise in that regard.
You have to feel sorry for Jen Psaki and Marie Harf. August 8th, Barack Obama's 'plan' kicked off with bombings. The US planes -- and others in the coalition -- continue to bomb Iraq.
And it's really made no visible impact at all.
Yet they're expected to spin it as a success and as a plan.
There has been no success. The editorial board of the Washington Post points out that the White House attempts to sell the 'answer' as a national guard in Iraq but there's still no national guard:
The problem is that legislation to create the guard has yet to pass the Iraqi parliament; Shiite leaders are reluctant to grant authority to the Sunni tribes. Meanwhile, ammunition and other gear promised to the Sunni tribesmen is not getting through, for much the same reason. Mr. Abadi, who is praised by Mr. Abu Risha for his conciliatory steps, has nevertheless failed to bridge the divide. He has also failed to establish the government’s authority over Iranian-backed Shiite militias, which, with no supply problems, are retaking ground from the Islamic State, sometimes with U.S. air support, and then imposing their own sectarian rule.
In his Senate confirmation hearing, Defense Secretary-designate Ashton Carter said red tape had often frustrated prompt delivery of U.S. arms supplies and vowed to tackle the problem once he is on office. That’s welcome, but the trouble in Iraq appears to be more than a bureaucratic blunder. Festering political problems in Baghdad have not been addressed, and President Obama’s commitment of resources and extended timeline for action are simply inadequate. As Mr. Abu Risha told us: “The longer [Islamic State] is in Anbar the more dangerous they will be.”
The hearing on Ashton Carter's nomination to be Secretary of Defense was Wednesday. We covered it in two snapshots last week: "Iraq snapshot" and "Iraq snapshot." In the hearing, it was clear that Iraq's crises will not be solved by dropping bombs on the country.
One such exchange:
Ranking Member Jack Reed: One of the issues -- particular with respect to Iraq -- is that not only improvement as you suggest in your comments, the longterm defeat, uh, of ISIL rests not just on military operations but on political arrangements. And what we've witnessed in Iraq particularly was a political arrangement that consciously and deliberately degraded the Sunni population. At least, that's there perception. And it gave rise. So would you acknowledge that part of a strategy has to be constituting an Iraqi government that is perceived by its own people as being a bit fairer and inclusive?
Ashton Carter: Absolutely. That's what the previous government of Iraq did not do and that was instrumental in their military collapse.
Ranking Member Jack Reed: And one of the issues that complicates, you've pointed out, in terms of Iran being a strategic issue for the United States in the region is their relative influence in Iraq and throughout the region was enhanced over the last several years by the government in Iraq, by the [Nouri al-] Maliki government. Is that accurate?
Ashton Carter: That is accurate, yes.
Ashton Carter: Absolutely. That's what the previous government of Iraq did not do and that was instrumental in their military collapse.
Ranking Member Jack Reed: And one of the issues that complicates, you've pointed out, in terms of Iran being a strategic issue for the United States in the region is their relative influence in Iraq and throughout the region was enhanced over the last several years by the government in Iraq, by the [Nouri al-] Maliki government. Is that accurate?
Ashton Carter: That is accurate, yes.
And yet still no work on the political.
But apparently the White House does remember its past time to get a fig leaf of Congressional authority to 'legalize' Barack's actions in Iraq. Patricia Zengerle (Reuters) reports:
The White House will ask Congress by Wednesday for new authority to use force against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, congressional aides said on Monday, paving the way for lawmakers’ first vote on the scope of a campaign that is already six months old.
Kristina Wong (The Hill) adds, "The new resolution will likely spark a contentious debate over the U.S. strategy against the terror group. Democrats have warned against mission creep and want set limits on U.S. action, including barring the use of ground troops. But Republicans warn that they will reject any language that could handcuff efforts to fight ISIS."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Hejira"
"Franco"
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: The problem with opticals
- TV: NBC's Biggest Diva: Little Miss Brian Williams...
- The World Can Wait (Parody)
- Drunk Literature
- Michele Kort and Ms. don't think women can cover s...
- Skippy
- Tweet to Remember
- This edition's playlist
- A View from the Bridge—migrants find betrayal and ...
- VETERANS: Murray Votes to Pass Clay Hunt Veterans ...
- Veteran suicide prevention bill goes to President’...
- Michigan Greens Urge "NO" Vote May 5 on Sales-Tax ...
- Highlights
