Friday, February 06, 2015

THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO STICKS TOGETHER!

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

ALL IS NOT COMPLETELY BLEAK FOR NBC NEWS ANCHOR BRIAN WILLIAMS!


CAN JAMES FRY BE FAR BEHIND?




Let's move over to Iraq.  You might think that with a billion dollars spent 'fighting' the Islamic State just since August -- over a billion US taxpayer dollars -- that Iraq would be a major part of the hearing but you would be wrong.  It was largely ignored.  Chair McCain addressed it and Ranking Member Jack Reed did.  Another raising the issue was Senator Ted Cruz.




Senator Ted Cruz:  How would you characterize our objective right now with regards to ISIS?


Ashton Carter:  To inflict a lasting defeat on ISIS.  I only add the word "lasting" to re-enforce the idea that once they're beaten, they need to stay beaten. Which means you need to create the conditions in Iraq and Syria so that they stay defeated.

Senator Ted Cruz: And final question, in your professional judgment, what would be required militarily for you to destroy or, as you put it, inflict a lasting defeat on ISIS?

Ashton Carter: Uh-uh, militarily it would be the, uh-uh-uh, dismantlement of their forces and their networks.  And, uh-uh, to get to the point about lastingly to -- there's a political ingredient of this uh-uh which I uh need to add which is to have them replaced in Iraq and Syria with, uhm-uh, a government that the people, uh, want to be part of, uh, and so they don't have to be governed by maniacs and terrorists.


Violence continues in Iraq.  All Iraq News notes 4 Baghdad bombings left 1 person dead and fourteen more injured and security forces state that the Islamic State burned 3 people to death in Heet.




The State Dept's Brett McGurk re-Tweeted  this today:
 Brett McGurk retweeted
 · 17 hours ago

Under the instructions of PM Al-Abadi, 221.5 tons of food items have arrived in Anbar province this morning.
25 retweets25 favorites







Do you wonder why?


Because he wants that message out, not this one:

 · 21 hours ago

وفاة الطفل عبدالله طه العيساوي نتيجة الحصار على الفلوجة وقلة الغذاء والدواء وعدم تواجد الفريق الطبي المتخصص بالأطفال.
View more photos and videos
51 retweets22 favorites








Iraqi Spring MC is raising attention to the death of Abdullah Taha al-Isawi in Falluja.  Why did the child die?  A lack of food, a lack of medicine. 

Brett McGurk, after the death of Abudllah, wants to reTweet Haider's late food shipment. 

Wants to rob the action of the context in which it took place.

Wants to pretend Haider did something wonderful.

The reality is Abudllah suffered because of Haider and so many civilians in Falluja continue to suffer because Haider's failed to be a leader.












There has been no real effort at political solutions in Iraq.  The US has pushed for retaliation and has set an example by doing that -- not a good example, true, but an example none the less.

Clearly, the Yazidis now believe violence is the answer.  Dropping back to the January 27th snapshot:


While Barack worried about diplomacy in Saudi Arabia, a natural event took place in Iraq.
The persecuted decided to persecute.  EFE reports:

A militant group including Yazidi and Syrian Kurdish fighters has killed at least 25 Arab civilians on the perimeters of the northwestern Iraqi town of Rabia, on the Syrian border, an official source announced on Tuesday.
Hosam al-Abar, a member of Niniveh's Provincial Council, told Efe that a series of barbaric revenge attacks targeted four Arab villages located 120 kilometers (74 miles) west of Mosul.
The attacks were carried out by Yazidi fighters supported by militias affiliated to Syrian Kurdish parties.

'Pity us!  Feel sorry for us!  Now look the other way as we kill and kidnap!'

This is only a manifestation of the hateful remarks some Yazidis were making publicly in 2013 and 2014.  Their being trapped on the mountain was a crisis and did require humanitarian aid being dropped to them.  That's really all the US should have committed.  (And that's all we advocated for here.)  In Iraq, the Yazidis are basically the short man at the party -- chip on their shoulder and easily outraged.
Years of being called "Satan worshipers" took their toll long before the Islamic State showed up.
Now they've mistaken global pity for permission to destroy and kill.


Last Thursday, Khales Joumah (Niqash) reported on the Yazidis attacking of Arab communities and concluded with this:



The fallout from the massacre saw Yazidi leaders, who have become responsible for parts of Sinjar newly liberated from the IS group, organized a meeting. They condemned the massacre and promised that such an act would never be repeated. They also said that the fighters who had carried out these acts were not able to be identified as they don’t belong to any of the known fighting factions. 



The provincial council says that there are now around a thousand families who have left their homes and who are in need of shelter and aid. On the ground in the area are hundreds of armed men from the villages which were attacked, vowing to protect what is theirs should they be attacked again. In the middle are a handful of Iraqi Kurdish military. Right now things are relatively calm but if tribal justice – which calls for reparations and an eye for an eye - continues to be meted out, it is hard to say how long it will stay that way.




As for Zahra, she found shelter in the home of a nearby relative. But she couldn’t stand not knowing what had happened to her family whom she had left at the mercy of very angry fighters. So, still wearing the same black clothing she had on the night of the attack, she returned to her village to search for her husband and two young sons. She eventually found their burnt corpses in one of the houses in the village that had been set on fire. 


Vengeance doesn't usually end violence.  It's a mirror to -- reflects and reproduces -- violence.

 

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


Posted by at

Thursday, February 05, 2015

THIS JUST IN! AMERICA REJECTS MSNBC!

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



IF THIS TREND CONTINUES EVEN EYE SORE RACHEL MADDOW MAY BE SENT PACKING AND WHAT AWAITS THE FAILED RADIO BROADCASTER IF TV ALSO REJECTS HER?

A COWGIRL RECREATIONAL DUDE-ETTE RANCH IN ARIZONA?






Remember when the media used to mock the way Sarah Palin spoke when answering questions?


"And to -- uh I-I-I think the uh-uh-uh the-the strategy connects, ends and means -- and our ends with respect to uh  ISIL needs to be it's lasting defeat.  Uh,  I say lasting because it's important when they get defeated and they stay defeated.  Uh, and, uh, that is why it's important that, uh, we have, uh, those on the ground there who will ensure they stay defeated once  defeated."


And to really underscore that statement by Ashton Carter, let's note that it was in response to this question from Senator John McCain, "What do you understand the strategy to be?"


Again, the answer was:




And to -- uh I-I-I think the uh-uh-uh the-the strategy connects, ends and means -- and our ends with respect to uh  ISIL needs to be it's lasting defeat.  Uh,  I say lasting because it's important when they get defeated and they stay defeated.  Uh, and, uh, that is why it's important that, uh, we have, uh, those on the ground there who will ensure they stay defeated once  defeated.


This morning the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing.  Senator John McCain is the Committee Chair and Senator Jack Reed is the Ranking Member.  They heard from only one witness:  Ashton Carter,  the nominee to be the next Secretary of Defense.

Yes, it's time for a new Secretary of Defense.

It's the start of year seven of Barack's eight years as president and that means a new Secretary of Defense, apparently.

Already, his tenure has seen Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel serve as Secretary of Defense. 

So, if confirmed, Ashton Carter will be the fourth Secretary of Defense in the administration.


For context, let's turn to Bill Clinton's terms.

Bill was elected president twice (1992 and 1996).

In his eight years, he had three Defense Secretaries: Les Aspin, William Perry and William Cohen.


Aspin was a mistake.  He had health issues which got worse in his brief tenure and he also had a highly embarrassing public moment (the Mogadishu attack which left eighteen US service members dead and over seventy injured) which led Bill to ask for Aspin's resignation.


Barack's asked for no resignations (as far as we know) from Gates, Panetta or Hagel.  He just can't seem to keep them.  Maybe he should be singing "Shake It Off"?


I go on too many dates
But I can't make them stay
That's what people say
-- "Shake It Off," written by Taylor Swift, first appears on her 1989.


Carter's biography at DoD is as follows:


Ashton B. Carter served as the Deputy Secretary of Defense from October 2011 to December 2013.
Previously, Dr. Carter served as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics from April 2009 until October 2011.  As Under Secretary, Dr. Carter led the Department’s efforts to accelerate the fulfillment of urgent operational needs; increase the Department’s buying power; and strengthen the nation¹s defenses against emerging threats.
Over the course of his career in public service, Dr. Carter has four times been awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal.  For his contributions to intelligence, Dr. Carter was awarded the Defense Intelligence Medal.
Dr. Carter earned bachelor's degrees in physics and in medieval history from Yale University, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, and received his doctorate in theoretical physics from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. 
Prior to his most recent government service, Dr. Carter was chair of the International and Global Affairs faculty at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and Co-Director of the Preventive Defense Project.   Dr. Carter was also Senior Partner at Global Technology Partners, a member of the Aspen Strategy Group, a member of the Board of Trustees of the MITRE Corporation and the Advisory Boards of MIT’s Lincoln Laboratories and the Draper Laboratory, and an advisor to Goldman Sachs.
During the Clinton Administration, Dr. Carter was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.  From 1990 until 1993, Dr. Carter was Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Chairman of the Editorial Board of International Security.  Previously, he held positions at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and Rockefeller University.
Dr. Carter is a member of the President’s Management Council and the National Council on Federal-Labor-Management Relations. He has previously served on the White House Government Accountability and Transparency Board, the Defense Science Board, the Defense Policy Board, the Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board, and the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.  
Dr. Carter is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Academy of Diplomacy and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Physical Society.
In addition to authoring articles, scientific publications, government studies, and Congressional testimonies, Dr. Carter has co-edited and co-authored eleven books.

Dr. Carter is married to Stephanie Carter and has two grown children.




His wife Stephanie sat behind him this morning and fidgeted throughout the (very long) hearing.



Various issues came up throughout the hearing.  We'll note this exchange on Iraq.




Ranking Member Jack Reed: So, the Middle East, do you believe the most immediate threat there to US interests in the region is ISIL?

Ashton Carter: Uh, uh-uh-uh-uh, I hesitate to, uh-uh-uh, ISIL only because in the back of my mind is Iran as well.  Uh-uh-uh, so I think that we have two immediate, substantial dangers, uh, in the Middle East.  Uh, one is ISIL and one is Iran.

Ranking Member Jack Reed: In terms of our current military operations, they are clearly directed at ISIL is that --

Ashton Carter:  That's true.

Ranking Member Jack Reed: -- the appropriate response at this moment to the threats in the region.

Ashton Carter:  It is. 

Ranking Member Jack Reed: And as you point out, there are two theaters.  One is Iraq where we have more traction and the other is Syria.  So you would think in terms of responding to the threat that our actions or our vigorous support of the current Iraqi government is appropriate in responding to this ISIL threat?

Ashton Carter:  It is appropriate if I -- as I said -- if I -- if, uh, -- whether and how to improve it will be my first job if I'm confirmed as Secretary of Defense.

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.

Ranking Member Jack Reed:  So we are now in a position of.trying to essentially contain the regional ambitions of the Iranians and kinetically defeat the Sunni radical Islamists.  Is that the strategy?

Ashton Carter: Yes, that sounds right.

Ranking Member Jack Reed:  And you understand that?  And that to you is a coherent strategy?

Ashton Carter: It is, uh, yes.

Ranking Member Jack Reed: Uh, now that means that your prioritizing -- or the administration is prioritizing these actions you've talked about in building, uh, over time, capability in Syria. Uh, in terms of using US resources in addressing the most serious threats, is that a coherent response in your mind?

Ashton Carter: Uh, I think it is the beginning of a, uh, strategic response.  Uh, I think that, uh, as I noted on the, uh, Syrian side of the border, the, uh, assembling of the force that is going to keep ISIL defeated. Uh, there is, uh -- We're in the early stage of trying to build that force.  We're participating in the uh-uh building of that force, I think it's fair to say that we're at an earlier stage there.  On the Iraqi side, we have the existing Iraqi force.

Senator Jack Reed:  Let me --

Ashton Carter:  Uh, uh, mister, uh, Senator Reed -- 

Senator Jack Reed:  Please.

Ashton Carter:  Let me add one other thing.  Maybe it's something I missed in your, uh, line of uh-uh questioning.  There is, uh, an issue, uh-uh, looming over this which is Iraq in the region.  I mean Iran in the whole region.  That is why I pointed it out at the beginning.  That is a serious complication. 



There are other moments I'd like to note about the hearing.

I'm not really concerned with his position on the Ukraine -- but then I'm not selling war on the Ukraine. 

The US press corps is which is why they ran like crazy with that aspect of the hearing.

They can't stop beating off and fingering themselves to the thought of a full blown US invasion of Ukraine.  They're that sick and that nutty.

Carter insisted that he did support sending arms to the so-called 'rebels' in Ukraine and, in one exchange, he added "lethal arms" at that. 

If they were less hot and bothered over war on Ukraine, they might have wondered about his wording and if that reflected on his competency?

I have no idea if it does or not.

People can get flustered speaking off the top of their heads and clearly Ashton Carter was flustered throughout the hearing.

But if someone's going to be over the Defense Dept, I kind of expect that they would grasp that any arms sent to be used in battle would be "lethal arms."

Or is Carter proposing water guns and super soaker water blasters be sent to the CIA-backed 'rebels' in the Ukraine?

Equally true, it doesn't matter what Carter thinks.

US policy in terms of whether to go to war will continue to be decided by the president and the national security advisor and others -- the others and the national security advisor were, of course, neither elected nor confirmed by an elected body.

The American people had no say in them.

That's not how it's supposed to be in a democracy.

And careful readers of Robert Gates and Leon Panetta's recent autobiographies caught what the press refused to explore: how little the Secretary of Defense can impact foreign policy.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


  •  




    • Posted by at

    Wednesday, February 04, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! STILL LEARNING ON THE JOB!

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


    AS CRITICISM CONTINUES TO MOUNT OVER FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S LACK OF PLANS TO ADDRESS THE ISLAMIC STATE 8 MONTHS AFTER HE BEGAN BOMBING IRAQ, THE WHITE HOUSE IS ON THE DEFENSIVE.

    SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST FACED THE PRESS TODAY AND SWEATED LIKE A STUCK PIG.

    AFTERWARDS, HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "THE PRESS NEEDS TO GIVE THE BIG O A BREAK.  HE ONLY STARTED BOMBING IN AUGUST AND IT TOOK US UNTIL JANUARY TO CONVINCE HIM THAT ISIS WASN'T A SATURDAY MORNING SUPER HERO SHOW."

    WIPING HIS BROW, EARNEST EXPLAINED, "EVERY TIME WE'D TELL HIM HE HAD TO DEAL WITH ISIS, HE'D LAUGH AND SAY, 'YEAH, YEAH, RIGHT AFTER I SEND CAPTAIN CAVEMAN TO TAKE OUT THE ANT HILL MOB.'



    Yesterday, Holly Williams (CBS News -- link is text and video) reported on the Bard Brigade -- Shi'ite thugs fighting in Iraq -- fighting the Islamic State and fighting any Sunni civilians they can get near.  Williams characterized them as possibly "effective" and then went on to note last week's massacre of Sunnis (over 70) carried out by Shi'ite militia members (according to survivors).

    That renders them ineffective.

    There is no chance that they "may be effective."

    They could kill X number of IS members a day, they would still not be effective.

    That's because their targeting of Sunnis is exactly why the Islamic State got a foothold in Iraq and continues to thrive there.

    As long as the Iraqi government continues to use these thugs, the Islamic State continues.

    This is basic but Jen Psaki prefers to to play the public fool at the US State Dept such as today in the press briefing when she thought she was 'cute' during this exchange with Al Quds' Said Arikat.



    QUESTION: Now, I know this is probably a question better addressed to the Pentagon, but there’s a great deal of talk about postponing the much-anticipated spring offensive, but there’s a political dimension to it. It seems that a great deal of differences between Sunni and Shiite --


    MS. PSAKI: Are you referring to – in Iraq?

    QUESTION: Yes, yeah. In the fight against ISIL, in the fight or in the effort to reclaim or retake, liberate Mosul. So there seems to be a lot of bickering and infighting among Sunni and Shiites and so on. My question to you – that General Austin was there, of course, Mr. McGurk was there the week before, I think, or maybe a couple weeks before. What are you doing in terms of bringing all these different points of views together, having the Kurds, the Peshmerga, and the central forces working together?


    MS. PSAKI: Well, let me first say on the first part I have no confirmation of that or validation of that, and my suspicion is your information is inaccurate.
    On the second piece, there are a range of steps that we’re taking. Obviously, we work closely with the Government of Iraq. As you know, one of the efforts that the anti-ISIL coalition is very focused on is not only boosting their capacity but taking steps to go after ISIL in Iraq. We have – and you are right; most of this in terms of technicalities is best posed to the Pentagon, and they can get into specifics – let me finish – as they often do. And so I would certainly encourage you to pose this question to them.
    But I would also add that, in addition to the efforts of the coalition countries, that Prime Minister Abadi has been taking steps to – greater – create greater unity to better incorporate different forces underneath the Iraqi Security Forces. That is something that has been ongoing. It’s not new now, but they’re continuing to take steps on.


    QUESTION: I guess my point, or the thrust of my question, is the following: That while there was a great deal of enthusiasm, let’s say, a month ago among the Sunni tribes who was working with Prime Minister Abadi, there is less of that enthusiasm because they feel that much of what they have been promised has not been delivered. They are a bit skeptical about the national guard that is being formed and so on.
    I wonder if you could – if you have any information, to begin with, that you can share with us on this.


    MS. PSAKI: Well, Said, I have nothing to validate your view or your opinion, and I haven’t --


    QUESTION: It is not opinion. I mean, that’s --


    MS. PSAKI: -- seen those reports that you’ve mentioned. So I don’t think anyone should take that as fact. The national guard is part of the Iraqi Government’s long-term restructuring plan of the Iraqi Security Forces into a federalized security force. This is something that they’ve asked for United States – the United States for assistance to help further define and develop the program. We’re working with the government and providing advice based on our previous experiences. The national guard would not replace, but rather augment a restructured multi-sect and multiethnic federal security force as well as address a key demand that many leaders from across Iraq have called for over the last 10 years. It’s been in the process of being implemented for a couple of months now, but obviously, it’s not at full completion.




    Poor Jen.  She didn't come off cute, she came off like an ass -- and an uninformed one at that.


    For example, this morning Alice Fordham (NPR's Morning Edition) reported today on this reality and notes, "[Sheikh Ahmed] Dabash's views are typical of a broad spectrum of Sunnis in Iraq Islamists, tribes, one-time supporters of Saddam Hussein.  They feel victimized by Iraq's Shi'ite-led government and many fight against the Shi'ite-dominant army either joining ISIS or aligning with them -- even if they find the group extreme."

    Fordham notes how the US feels the (still not formed) Iraqi national guard is the solution but Sunni leaders feel differently.

    Jen Psaki missed that report -- how uninformed and ignorant is she?


    Al Quds reports the long planned spring offensive to retake Mosul just got kicked back and the decision was made after US Gen Lloyd Austin shared his observations about the current state of Iraq following his visit to the country last week. 

    There is no plan, there is no forward movement.

    And the window for new Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to show change has been closing for some time.

    We've noted that here, we've noted the lack of a political solution in Iraq and we've noted the White House's inability to aid Haider in pursing a political solution.  Instead, US President Barack Obama has not just used the Pentagon to plan military strikes on Iraq and to build the so-called 'coalition,' he's diverted the State Dept from its mission of diplomacy to make it a mouth piece for a militant theocracy that worships exploding bombs.

    And how's that working out?

    David Alexander and Lisa Shumaker (Reuters) report:



    "Quite frankly, we need to see in Iraq political outreach that addresses the fact that some 20 million Sunnis are disenfranchised with their government," Lieutenant General William Mayville told a hearing on global threats facing the United States.
    Mayville, director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff, told lawmakers he endorsed the current steady, deliberate pace of efforts to defeat Islamic State in Iraq and Syria because it gave the Iraqi government time to act politically, a step he said was necessary to resolve the crisis.
    "I think it is very, very important that the pace of operations be such that ... the military lines of effort don't get out in front of the political lines of effort that must be achieved in order to get an enduring solution here," he told a panel in the House of Representatives.


    It's February.

    Nothing's been accomplished but talk.

    Empty words from Haider.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

    Posted by at

    Tuesday, February 03, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! THEY DO NOT TRAIN THEM WELL AT THE POST!

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


    DOES LITTLE TERRY MCCOY KNOW HIS JOB AT THE WASHINGTON POST?


    DO HIS EDITORS?

    STILL AMAZED THAT HAIRS SPROUTED DOWN BELOW, TERRY MCCOY IS EASILY DISTRACTED THESE DAYS WHICH MIGHT EXPLAIN HIS BULLS**T OF CLAIMING FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECLARING IN 2008 THAT THE SCIENCE WAS "INCONCLUSIVE" ON VACCINES WAS NOT PANDERING.

    BUT WHAT EXPLAINS HIS EDITORS PUTTING UP WITH THAT CRAP?


    FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONFUSED, LITTLE TERRY'S JOB IS DESCRIBED AT THE BOTTOM OF HIS BLOG POST:


    Terrence McCoy writes on foreign affairs for The Washington Post's Morning Mix. Follow him on Twitter here.


    FOREIGN AFFAIRS?

    THAT WOULD INCLUDE IRAQ.

    IS TERRY UNABLE TO WRITE ABOUT IRAQ?

    IS LITTLE TERRY CONFUSED AS TO WHAT "FOREIGN AFFAIRS" MEANS?





    Also on shaky ground is this statement she writes, "Meanwhile, on Saturday, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi promised to address the deaths of 72 Iraqis allegedly murdered by Shi’ite militiamen."


    Did Haider promise to address it?

    No.

    And the link, a Reuters report, doesn't maintain that he did.

    Stephen Kalin, Ahmed Rasheed, Saif Hameed, Dominic Evans and Stephen Powell report that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abahdi gave a speech.

    It's an insignificant speech. 

    Al Jazeera noted of it:

    Iraq's prime minister has fired a warning at government and militia fighters who operate beyond the law.
    Speaking at a security summit in Baghdad, Haider al-Abbadi said criminals and outlaws responsible for kidnappings and killings were no less dangerous than what he called terrorists.

    Here's the quote:


    "Let everyone hear me - those are outlaws by the consensus of all Iraqi society. They do not represent the popular mobilisation forces, nor the security forces or even Iraqis," Abadi said.
    "Those are criminals and outlaws. They came with their agenda to entrap Iraqis.
    "I have said it before and will say it today - those who were conducting killings and kidnapping crimes in Baghdad and other cities are no less dangerous than terrorists."


    What the hell was that?


    He did not promise to address the deaths.

    His comments about the investigation weren't even news.

    He wasn't announcing an unknown thing.

    The investigation was noted days ago.  Nabih Bulos (Los Angeles Times) reported it the Ministry of the Interior announced the investigation last Tuesday.

    Haider al-Abadi did not say anyone would be arrested, did not assert that anyone would be punished.  He just noted the investigation and that this behavior (the massacre) is not helpful and is as destructive as terrorism.

    Well it is terrorism.

    Shi'ite militias (and possibly Iraqi forces) targeting and killing Sunnis is terrorism.

    The Reuters report notes that the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani endorses an investigation and that is new and news worthy.  But Haider just flapped his gums.

    He flapped his gumbs because, as a State Dept friend said on the phone tonight, Democrats in the Senate are in a panic over Human Rights Watch's report on Iraq in their [PDF format warning] 25th annual World Report.

    In November of 2013, Barack came dangerously close to the Senate cutting off his flow of weapons to Iraq because  they were concerned that the weapons were being used on the Iraqi people by thug Nouri al-Maliki.

    Barack strong armed to get his way.

    Now he's not just trying to continue the flood of weapons into Iraq -- with a new prime minister, Haider -- he's also trying to get authorization for US ground troops in Iraq, to keep critics of his 'plan' for Iraq at bay and much more.

    In other words, Barack doesn't have time for the bad publicity of the massacre. Last Monday, Ahmed Rasheed, Stephen Kalin and Robin Pomeroy (Reuters) reported:


    Sunni politicians and tribal chiefs from Iraq's eastern Diyala province accused Shi'ite militias on Monday of killing more than 70 unarmed civilians who had fled clashes with Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) militants.

    And then Ahmed Rasheed, Ned Parker and Stephen Kalin (Reuters) reported on the testimony of the survivors.


    Barack doesn't have time for this.

    So the White House that can't or won't use their power to force Haider to put through a more inclusive government did use their power to inform Haider he had to make some remarks the White House could use to calm Congressional Dems.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Hulu"




    • Posted by at

    Sunday, February 01, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! BOTH! BOTH ARE SCUM!

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


    TIRED HAG MEDEA BENJAMIN REFUSING TO FADE AFTER HER 15 MINUTES OF FAME LONG AGO ELAPSED WANTS TO ASK:

    "Who’s the “Low Life Scum:” Kissinger or CODEPINK?"


    OH, MEDEA.

    YOU AND YOUR BINARY THINKING!

    YOU AND YOUR EITHER/OR.


    "Who’s the “Low Life Scum:” Kissinger or CODEPINK?"


    YOU BOTH ARE.


    NOW GO WHORE FOR BARACK AGAIN CAUSE YOUR TIRED AND SMELLY JUNK AIN'T GETTING ANY YOUNGER.



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




     Six months into US President Barack Obama's 'plan' for saving Iraq from violence, the violence continues.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 197 dead from violence on Friday with another forty-one left injured.  And already today, Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports Baghdad and surrounding areas have been slammed with bombings resulting in 9 deaths and twenty-five people injured.


    US President Barack Obama: Good afternoon, everybody.  I just met with my national security team to discuss the situation in Iraq.  We’ve been meeting regularly to review the situation since ISIL, a terrorist organization that operates in Iraq and Syria, made advances inside of Iraq.  As I said last week, ISIL poses a threat to the Iraqi people, to the region, and to U.S. interests.  So today I wanted to provide you an update on how we’re responding to the situation.
    First [. . .]
    American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.
    [. . .]
    I want to emphasize, though, that the best and most effective response to a threat like ISIL will ultimately involve partnerships where local forces, like Iraqis, take the lead. 
    Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq.  At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners.  And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.
    Above all, Iraqi leaders must rise above their differences and come together around a political plan for Iraq’s future.  Shia, Sunni, Kurds -- all Iraqis -- must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence.  National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq’s different communities.  Now that the results of Iraq’s recent election has been certified, a new parliament should convene as soon as possible.  The formation of a new government will be an opportunity to begin a genuine dialogue and forge a government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis.

    Now, it’s not the place for the United States to choose Iraq’s leaders.  It is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to truly bring the Iraqi people together and help them through this crisis.  Meanwhile, the United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another.  There’s no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.  But there is an urgent need for an inclusive political process, a more capable Iraqi security force, and counterterrorism efforts that deny groups like ISIL a safe haven.


    That's Barack speaking on June 19th.

    First off, please note, there's been no serious updates from Barack in the time since.  Starting in August, US tax payers on the hook for over a billion dollars because of Barack's 'response' to the Islamic State.  Despite spending billions of tax payer dollars, the White House hasn't felt the need to seriously address Iraq -- it was but a brief aside, one sentence, in Barack's State of the Union Address last week -- despite the fact that this Constitutionally mandated speech required Barack to address the issue of Iraq.

    The State Dept's also failing to address it.  I was asked Friday if I'd organized a veterans lobby?  Huh?  This week, the State Dept's online surveys have resulted in one slam after another from self-identified veterans of the Iraq War noting that the daily press briefings have ignored Iraq repeatedly.  No, I had nothing to do with that.  But how out of touch is the State Dept with American citizens -- including veterans -- that when their own surveys reveal the public is appalled that they're refusing to update daily on Iraq, the State Dept's natural assumption is to assume it must be a conspiracy and not, in fact, a true reflection of public attitudes.


    Let's emphasize this from the speech:

    Finally, the United States will lead a diplomatic effort to work with Iraqi leaders and the countries in the region to support stability in Iraq.  At my direction, Secretary Kerry will depart this weekend for meetings in the Middle East and Europe, where he’ll be able to consult with our allies and partners.  And just as all Iraq’s neighbors must respect Iraq’s territorial integrity, all of Iraq’s neighbors have a vital interest in ensuring that Iraq does not descend into civil war or become a safe haven for terrorists.




    Where's that diplomatic effort?

    As noted Friday morning, some feel I should have covered the passage of the Iraqi budget in Thursday's snapshot.


     This morning Alsumaria has published it in PDF format and, at some point today, I will try to read it.  Prior to that, it's a sentence: Iraq passed a budget worth $150 billion US dollars. Saif Hameed (Reuters) has that here.
    Considering the way programs to rebuild Iraq were being slashed when oil was at a high, I can't imagine that the programs didn't suffer even more as the oil prices dropped.
    That's what the story of the budget's about: Where the money is going.
    That is passed is meaningless without knowing that.



    Reuters has published another piece here -- the last part notes some budget issues.  I'm not talking about the budget, I haven't read it.  I haven't had the time.  I also haven't to sleep since I woke up Friday morning.  I do have a life.  (There may be a piece tonight responding to flack from United Nations' friends over Thursday's snapshot, there may not be.  I listened to their whines repeatedly yesterday.  It's whining.  We may do something here tonight on the UN, the CIA, etc.)

    But the budget . . .

    I don't work for the US government (or the UN), I don't take orders from them.


    I don't work for Reuters either.

    Reuters did their job reporting, from Iraq, that the budget had passed and noting that former prime minister (and forever thug) Nouri al-Maliki never was able to pass a 2014 budget.

    The news agency spends a lot of money to cover Iraq, they did their job and justified the money spent.


    But more money is being spent by the American taxpayer on Iraq right now than by Reuters.

    Again, the price tags for just the time since August is over a billion (some of that is Syria-related costs as well).


    The American public, footing the bill, is not seeing a return on their dollar for this huge expenditure.

    Not in terms of information.


    What has been the US government's response to the budget passing?

    There's been no statement released by the White House.  There's been no read out of a phone call the president or Vice President Joe Biden had with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi congratulating him on the budget passing.

    The State Dept?






    Recommended: "Alan Grayson embarrasses, Michelle Obama succeeds"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Things we overlooked?"
    "Instead of idiot of the week . . ."
    "American Sniper"
    "The Mind Project (a spoiler)"
    "What a self-obsessed groupie Joan Baez was"
    "State of Affairs (Alfre Woodard)"
    "state of affairs (the terrorists)"
    "California Dreamin' by Michelle Phillips"
    "The Star Machine by Jeanine Basinger (attacking KT Stevens and others)"
    "Nikita"
    "High Treason: The Assassination of President Kennedy and the New Evidence of Conspiracy"
    "Barry spots his love of bitchy"
    "THIS JUST IN! MEOW MIX FOR BARRY!"

    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)