Friday, April 17, 2015

THIS JUST IN! DOES SHE TUCK?

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

IS CRANKY CLINTON A TOP?

SLATE EXPLORES THE NEW SLOGAN "I'D BOTTOM FOR HILLARY" WITH REGARDS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S BOTTOM SHAMING.

THEY TEND TO FALL SILENT ON THE OTHER HALF OF THE EQUATION.

EVERY BOTTOM MUST HAVE A TOP, AFTER ALL.

SO IS CRANKY CLINTON THE BIG SWINGING DICK, THE COCK OF THE WALK?

SHE HAS NO PENIS -- AS FAR AS WE KNOW.

BUT COULD THIS BE THE BIG CRANKY SCANDAL SENATOR RAND PAUL HAS BEEN HINTING OF?

WILL THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER FOLLOW HILLARY INTO A BATHROOM?


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi was at an event this morning.  The forum was hosted by The Center For Strategic and International Studies.  Haider opened by reading a speech (which we'll note sections of) that lasted approximately 15 minutes and was most noted for the fact that he delivered it in English.  Unlike Iraq's former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki, he did not speak through an interpreter or utilize one.  (Nouri can speak English.)


He and an Al Jazeera commentator would engage in Arabic when they wanted to trash the White House.  Such brave little cowards.  (I'm all for trashing anyone but do it openly, don't hide behind a foreign language.)  When the Al Jazeera commentator was asked to translate the question to English (as he was told he'd have to before he asked it), he insisted he'd ask his next question in English.


When told that wasn't good enough, the commentator then grew petulant and reduced his lengthy question to a simplistic sentence or two.

Haider responded to it in Arabic.

He was also unwilling to translate it and tried to avoid doing so.

At one point, he insisted he was not being paid to translate.

Well, I guess it's true, a whore expects to be paid for everything, right?

Huffy, Haider finally offered a very loose (and brief) translation of his remarks.


Haider also left the prepared text of his speech from time to time, such as near the end when he raised the issue of Saudi Arabia (and walked back some of his statements from the previous day -- "more concilitory" is how the New York Times' Michael R. Gordon termed the new remarks during his question to Haider at today's event).

His speech was filled with distortions.

Things got worse when the speech was set aside.

Responding to the first question asked by CSIS' Jon Alterman, Haider stated, "What we are facing in Iraq is a polarization of society caused by this terrorism and, of course, failure of governance, not only in Iraq but in the entire region."

That was problematic for a number of reasons.

First of all, the reply is ahistoric.  It attempts to set a mid-point as an instigating or creation point.  The Islamic State is the terrorism that Haider's referring to.

The Islamic State did not cause "polarization of society" in Iraq.

The Islamic State took root in Iraq, gained support and a foothold in the country, due to the government (led by Nouri) targeting Sunnis.

If Haider can't be honest about that, he's never going to accomplish anything.

The second biggest problem with the response is that Jon Alterman's actual question was: "I want to give you an opportunity to be critical about what Iran's doing in the Middle East.  What are they doing that they shouldn't be doing?"

And Haider took a pass -- instead noted that Iran shared in the battle against the Islamic State.

He sidestepped the issue with generic and bland statements such as, "It's not my role to criticize Gulf States, Saudi Arabia . . ."

Alterman attempted to follow up on the Iranian issue and Haider offered generic platitudes such as, "We welcome the Iranian help and support for us."


Haider relationship to the truth can best be described as "elusive."

At one point, he did not that "there must be a political solution.  In all honesty, I haven't seen any movement on that."

And, yes, it is true that US President Barack Obama has been declaring -- since last June -- that the only answer to Iraq's crises is a political solution.

But when Haider declared today that "there must be a political solution.  In all honesty, I haven't seen any movement on that"?

He was talking about Syria.


He was as full of it as the institution hosting him.  They included one Twitter question -- and that from a 'personality' -- in the proceedings -- this after spending over 24 hours begging for questions.

















  • What's the future of Iraq? Tweet your questions NOW for Iraqi Prime Minister al-Abadi's address tomorrow, using 


  • The Center For Strategic & International Studies gave the impression that they wanted questions for Haider al-Abadi and yet they really just wanted to waste people's time.







    Prime Minister @HaiderAlAbadi will answer audience questions, including yours sent via  to @CSIS http://bit.ly/1FL8Ao1 






    The questions that insisted CSIS and Haider ignore them?

    The bulk were about the violence including that carried out by militias and Iraqi forces, this was followed by the lack of work being done on a political solution (with many noting US President Barack Obama declared this the only answer for Iraq back in June), many were about the threats against journalism and journalists in Iraq (with an emphasis on Ned Parker), many were also about the status of Iraqi women (with a number asking who the highest ranking woman was in Haider's office and how many women served in his Cabinet), etc.  I was told that CSIS was hoping for questions more along the lines of, "What do you miss most about Baghdad?" and impressions on DC.

    In other words, meaningless questions with inoffensive answers from Haider.

    FYI, I agreed not to slam Jon Alterman -- and I could, I could really do so -- in exchange for finding out what the Twitter users were asking about -- the questions CSIS compiled from Twitter but never used.

    While ignoring hard hitting questions from Twitter, they couldn't ignore the journalists present and, after Iran, the most asked of topic was Ned Parker.


    Barbara Slavin: And also, one of our colleagues, Ned Parker, recently has left because of threats against Reuters for reporting what happened in Tikrit.  Will you issue a statement in Arabic protecting journalists for reporting what goes on in Iraq.  Thank you.

    Haider al-Abadi: As with Mr. Parker, Ned Parker, I've known him for many years.  I heard this story while he was still in Baghdad.  My natural fact, a spokesman for my office has given me a message and he told me Ned Parker feels threatened and asked what sort of threats he had received? We want more information so that I can take action about these people who have threatened him.  I haven't received anything on that, to be honest with you. I asked for protection of his office -- to increase protection of his office -- and we did.  But all of the sudden, I'd heard he left. I know he sent a message he wants to meet me in Washington but unfortunately my program is, uh -- I didn't even have time to talk to my wife yesterday. [Begins chuckling.]  So I don't think I would talk to Ned instead of my wife.

    And a statement in Arabic?

    I-I think my office issued a statement. In English?  Okay, we translate.

    What followed was an embarrassing and shameful round of laughter.

    This isn't a laughing matter.

    When the guffaws finally died down, the next question returned to the topic but with less 'jolly' and 'funnin'.'

    Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory: [. . .] But piggy backing on the last question about Ned Parker, I was just wondering if you could briefly comment as to your take on the current state of press freedom within Iraq?  And also, in terms of going and taking action in response to Parker's being chased out of the country, what steps are you planning -- or are there any steps planned to institute protections for international press covering your country?  During your address, you said, and I quote, "A free society needs a free press."  And so I was just wondering if that would extend to foreign press as well?

    Haider al-Abadi: Well I think if you look at the Iraqi press first, I think they're free to criticize.  I think that number one   institution which is being criticized in Iraq is the government.  We don't even reply to them.  We don't do anything. I drop charges against all-all media.  But I ask the media to have their own self-discipline.  That's important.  The media shouldn't be free to accuse others falsely.  They should respect freedom of others.  Freedom of speech is there but -- We need facts. But I refuse so far -- and I hope I continue on that -- you never know what office does.  Office usually corrupts people, right?  But I hope it doesn't corrupt me.  We keep on respecting the freedom of the press, we keep on protecting it.  As to the foreign press, as far as I know, there's no limitation on them, no restrictions.  They're free even to go to our --within our military unit.  I think we went to that extent to allow free reporting from the fronts.  I remember when the US army was there in 2003 [that's when Haider returned to Iraq after decades of exile in England], they had embedded journalists and they were restricted to what they were reporting.  I very much respect that.  I hope I can have that power to do that but unfortunately I cannot do it now.  It's so free, the situation in Iraq.  Now I'm not sure if Mr. Parker, why he has left.  To be honest with you, I didn't have the story from him.  He wrote something to me.  I cannot see why he left.  Was he really threatened?  Or he felt he was threatened?  I know some -- some Facebook thing and social media has mentioned him in a bad way but the-the thing I've seen -- in actual fact, they were condemning the government in the first place, not him.  They were condemning me as the prime minister to do something about it -- rather than him.  I know some of these, they want to use these things to just criticize the government in the same way when they accuse the coalition of dropping help to Da'ash or accuse the coalition of killing Iraqis falsely.  In actual fact, what they're trying to do -- trying to criticize the government for its policies. They don't want the government to seek the help of the coalition -- international coalition or to work with the US.  But to -- I think me, as prime minister, the safety of the Iraqi people, the interests of the Iraqi people is number one [. . .]


    He continued to babble on and avoid the question.


    Ned Parker appeared on today's Morning Edition (NPR -- link is audio, text and transcript) and here he's discussing, with host Steve Inskeep,  the Reuters report and what followed.


    NED PARKER: Well, our team on the day that Tikrit was liberated, they called me during the day and said we've witnessed an execution by federal police of a detainee in the street, and it was a mob mentality. And they could only stay a few minutes because it was such a crazed scene. I think our people feared for their own safety.
    So when they came home that evening, we had a huge debate about, do we report this? Is this too sensationalist? It's one incident. But when we looked at the whole picture, we also saw a body being dragged by a group of Shiite paramilitaries. We had photos of this, which we published, and there had been looting and arson of areas that surround Tikrit. So we felt that we had to report what happened there, that if we didn't, we wouldn't be meeting our obligation to report fairly and impartially about the critical issue right now, what happens when security forces enter an area that has been under Islamic State control, that is Sunni and then has predominantly Shia security and paramilitary forces enter?


    INSKEEP: This is the most basic job of a war correspondent; go look at a war and report exactly what you see.


    PARKER: Right. And this was a test case for the government. The Iraqi government and the U.S. government have spoken about the importance of post-conflict stabilization operations in Iraq.


    INSKEEP: What happened after you published this story?


    PARKER: It was picked up everywhere. I think it was seen because of what our correspondents witnessed - this execution, which was horrific - where they watched two federal policemen basically trying to saw off the head of a suspected Islamic State fighter to cheers from federal police. Our story became really the example of what went wrong in Tikrit, and it was published on April 3. The night of April 5, on Facebook on a site associated with Shiite paramilitary groups and political forces, a picture of myself went up calling for Iraqis to expel me. It quickly received over 100 shares and comments, including better to kill him than expel him.

    INSKEEP: Did it blow over?


    PARKER: No, it only got worse. I did go out and try to have meetings with some people, different prominent Iraqis, about it. And then on Wednesday night on the channel of Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, which is a prominent Shiite political party and paramilitary group, my face is the backdrop as the anchor talks, and he actually waves also a printout of my face and talks about how I should be expelled from the country and then proceeds to read a letter from an Iraqi living in the United States who also again calls for me to expel and describes Reuters as trampling upon the dignity of Iraq and Shiite paramilitary groups. And after that, there's no way I could've stayed in the country both for myself and for my staff. My presence was polarizing the situation, so I left the next day.



    [. . .]

    PARKER: Prime Minister Abadi last Thursday, the day after the broadcast against Reuters and myself, he gave a speech in public where he spoke in very broad strokes against a journalist who had been in Tikrit and had reported on the execution and the lootings and arson and implied perhaps some of the journalists who had been there had even been there deliberately to smear the government and the Shiite paramilitary forces on...

    INSKEEP: This is the same prime minister who was installed with the support of the United States recently and who's visiting Washington?

    PARKER: Right, and on the eve of his visit, a statement was issued by the prime minister's office in English talking about the need to protect and respect journalism in Iraq, including Reuters, and the statement referred to the incident involving myself and Reuters. But that statement was only put out in English and until now, it has not come out in Arabic.

    INSKEEP: So he's sympathetic to you in English and something else in Arabic entirely.


    PARKER: We're still waiting for the statement to come out in Arabic. It hasn't yet.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Haider al-Abadi speaks"
    "NYC Vets Unite at City Hall to Demand Action from ..."
    "NYCLU Alerts NYC Principals to Students’ Privacy R..."
    ""This was a test case for the government""
    "More problems for NBC News"
    "The Cowardly Debater"
    "What a friend we have in Barack"
    "The Reactionary Sean Penn"
    "All the wasted money"
    "Barack Obama and Susan Rice mock Hillary Clinton"
    "they never stop lying"
    "The sewage moves to another outlet"
    "Lie Face Melissa Harris Lacewell Perry in trouble again"
    "O'Malley"
    "Cranky's already forgetting things"
    "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S MEMORY PROBLEMS SURFACE AGAIN!"




  • Thursday, April 16, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S MEMORY PROBLEMS SURFACE AGAIN!

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

    CRANKY CLINTON IS OFF TO THE RACES.

    EIGHT YEARS LATER, THOUGH, SHE SEEMS TO HAVE LEARNED LITTLE.

    WHEN SHE TOLD ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE IN 2008 THAT SHE WAS UNDER FIRE IN BOSNIA WHILE FIRST LADY, SHE PLEADED 'EXHAUSTION.'


    SO WHAT'S HER EXCUSE FOR AGAIN -- YET AGAIN -- GETTING WHETHER OR NOT HER GRAND PARENTS WERE IMMIGRANTS WRONG YET AGAIN?

    (ONE OF THE EIGHT WAS -- ONLY ONE.)

    IF SHE'S EXAHUSTED JUST DAYS AFTER ANNOUNCING HER RUN, MAYBE SHE'S NOT UP FOR THE JOB?

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED SHE WAS UP FOR THE JOB AND "BESIDES WHO THE F**K IS GOING TO TELL ME NO THIS TIME?  NOBODY.  NOBODY."


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    The State Dept issued the following today:



    Today Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi to the State Department to brief senior diplomatic representatives from among the 62 members of the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. This plenary session was an opportunity for Coalition partners to reaffirm our support for Iraqi-led efforts to reclaim territory from ISIL, and our support for the Iraqi people as they are rescued from ISIL control and forge a more inclusive and durable political order.
    Deputy Secretary Blinken thanked Coalition partners for their extensive contributions toward the Coalition’s goal of degrading and defeating ISIL, echoing President Obama’s assertion that while the fight against ISIL is far from over, the momentum is heading in the right direction. Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL General John Allen briefed on progress across multiple Coalition lines of effort, and provided a readout of last week’s Coalition Small Group meeting in Jordan. Building on those conversations, Coalition partners discussed how to further strengthen, accelerate, and integrate contributions to Coalition efforts.
    This was the third Washington plenary session of Coalition ambassadors.


    Oh, goody.  Another meet-up for war, war, war.

    But no meet-up for diplomacy.

    "The momentum is heading in the right direction"?

    Really because Judy Woodruff declared on this evening's NewsHour (PBS -- link is text, video and audio), "Fighters with the Islamic State group gained new ground today in Western Iraq."

    He made those comments after today's big news was already in the news cycle.

    This morning, Arwa Damon (CNN -- link is video and text) reported on the situation in Anbar Province's Ramadi noting that deputy provincial council head Falih Essawi is issuing "a dire, dire warning" as the Islamic State advances.

    Arwa Damon:  ISIS forces, it seems, early this morning managing to enter the outskirts of the city of Ramadi from the east.  This now means that ISIS is fighting on the east.  ISIS advanced from the north -- taking over three towns from the outskirts there over the weekend.  The routes to the south already blocked off.  The city basically under siege except for the western portion that is still controlled by forces, by government forces, but that is wavering as well.



    Sky News notes the three areas taken, "The militant group took the villages of Sjariyah, Albu-Ghanim and Soufiya, in Anbar province, which had been under government control, residents said." Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) observed:


    Pentagon officials stopped short of saying the city was on the brink of falling. But they didn’t sound confident it would hold, either.
    “The situation in Ramadi remains fluid and, as with earlier assessments, the security situation in the city is contested. The ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] continue to conduct clearing operations against ISIL-held areas in the city and in the surrounding areas of Al Anbar province,” U.S. Central Command spokesman Army Maj. Curt Kellogg, a said in a statement, using the government’s preferred acronym for ISIS. The Coalition continues to coordinate with ISF forces and provide operational support as requested.”


    AFP's Jean Marc Mojon and Karim Abou Merhil sound out various Middle East experts about the prospects for victory in Anbar.  We'll note this section:

    “Anbar, and especially Fallujah, is like Asterix’s village,” said Victoria Fontan, a professor at American University Duhok Kurdistan, referring to an unconquerable town in the French comic book series.
    The province is packed with experienced fighters and while some Sunni tribes have allied with the government, others are fighting alongside ISIS or sitting on the fence.
    Local knowledge is seen as key to retaking territory along the fertile strip lining the Euphrates, where ISIS has inflicted severe military setbacks to the police and army since June.


    Iraqi Spring MC notes this takes place as calls for reinforcements of government troops to be sent to . . . Baiji.

    That's in northern Iraq, Salahuddin Province.  These reinforcements are being sent in to protect . . .  Well, not people.  There are people in Ramadi who need protection.  But the government forces going to Baiji are going to protect an oil refinery.

    Saif Hameed, Isabel Coles and Giles Elgood (Reuters) explain:

    The new Anbar campaign was intended to build on a victory in the city of Tikrit, which Iraqi security forces and Shi'ite paramilitaries retook this month.
    But the Sunni jihadists have struck back in Anbar as well as Baiji, where they blasted through the security perimeter around Iraq's largest refinery several days ago.





    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
    "Reality just slapped Barack in the face"
    "Hillary and other things "
    "The Flash (Felicity visits)"
    "Ned Parker on Thursday's Morning Edition (NPR)"
    "The new Nouri"
    "Barack's victory?"
    "Dahila surfaces (The Originals)"
    "revenge"
    "Netflix"
    "Salads in the Kitchen"
    "Wait, Hillary can't call herself Hillary? WTF?"
    "THIS JUST IN! HER NAME IS HILLARY!"
    "Peggy Drexler lives to bitch"




    Wednesday, April 15, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! HER NAME IS HILLARY!

    BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX  & THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS A GREAT MAN -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

    IT WAS MARIA MCKEE WHO WISELY OBSERVED:

    SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING
    SOME FOLKS JUST NEVER STOP BITCHING

    CASE IN POINT: PEGGY DREXLER.

    PEGS -- AND WE CALL HER PEGS INTENTIONALLY AND WITH NOT A HINT OF AFFECTION -- IS BLOWING A GASKET OVER THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE CALLING HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON "HILLARY."

    SHE'S EVEN UPSET WITH HILLARY FOR CALLING HERSELF HILLARY.

    DID PEGS WANT HILLARY TO CALL HERSELF "HEATHER" OR "DANA" OR "CAITLIN/KATLYN" OR . . .

    WAIT, DOES PEGS THINK "HILLARY" IS A MUSLIM NAME?

    REMEMBER THOSE FREAKS IN 2008, WHO'D RUN AROUND INSISTING BARACK'S GIVEN MIDDLE NAME COULD NOT BE MENTIONED?

    THEY WERE LIKE 40-YEAR-OLD MEN STILL LIVING IN SHAME OVER DADDY NAMING THEM "JUNIOR."

    A NAME'S A NAME.

    UNLESS YOU'RE PEG.

    HEY, DID PEG GET PEGGED?

    THAT WOULD EXPLAIN A LOT.


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    On a day of fakery, it's only fitting that one of the all time biggest US fakes attempted to return to prominence.


    Who are we talking about?

    In April of 2000, Norman Solomon noted this gas bag in a "Media Jeopardy" column:


    Although he represented "the left" for six years on CNN's "Crossfire" program, this pundit identifies himself as "a wishy-washy moderate."

    Who is Michael Kinsley? 



    Yes, we're talking about Michael Kinsley -- Michael "I'm not really a liberal but I played one on TV."

    And he did.  On CNN's Crossfire.


    He faked his way through a lot of things.  At the end of 1999, Norman Solomon awarded Kinsley an 'honor:'

    Take It on Faith Award: Michael Kinsley. In a Time magazine essay, Kinsley -- who works for two of the planet's most powerful communications firms, Microsoft and Time Warner -- sought to persuade readers that the World Trade Organization is a fine institution, despite protests. Kinsley's Dec. 13 piece ended with these words: "But really, the WTO is OK. Do the math. Or take it on faith."

    Norman Solomon, in his book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, it was pretty much a requirement that a useless gas bag like Michael be included:

    "The president's ability to decide when and where to use America's military power is now absolute," Michael Kinsey observed as the invasion of Iraq ended in (temporary) triumph.  "Congress cannot stop him.  That's not what the Constitution says, and it's not what the War Powers Act says, but that's how it works in practice."


    Staying with the Iraq War, the Times of London broke the news on The Downing Street Memo.

    And in the US, the response from most news outlets was silence.

    Or in MK's case, ridicule.

    Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) observed in June 2005:

    Maybe now you’ll start to believe the things we’ve said about Michael Kinsley and, by extension, about the fops who are runing our mainstream press corps. In Sunday’s Post (and Los Angeles Times), Kinsley writes an astonishing column about the Downing Street memo. Do a gang of millionaire fops drive our discourse? In case you didn’t know that already, Kinsley sets out to prove it—in spades.
    As noted, Kinsley discusses the famous Downing Street memo; in it, a top adviser to Tony Blair seems to say that President Bush had decided on war with Iraq as early as July 2002 (and was “fixing” the facts and the intel accordingly). The memo appeared on May 1 in the Times of London; concerned citizens have been dissecting it from that day to this, even as the Washington press corps struggled to avoid all discussion. (Panel discussions about Kerry’s grades at Yale were far more germane.) But good news! The great Kinsley has finally read the whole memo! Drink in the sheer condescension as he explains why he did:

    KINSLEY (6/12/05; pgh 1): After about the 200th e-mail from a stranger demanding that I cease my personal coverup of something called the Downing Street Memo, I decided to read it. It's all over the blogosphere and Air America, the left-wing talk radio network: This is the smoking gun of the Iraq war. It is proof positive that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq the year before he did so. The whole "weapons of mass destruction" concern was phony from the start, and the drama about inspections was just kabuki: going through the motions.
    At the Times, Daniel Okrent always seemed to think it was beneath his dignity to receive e-mails from the herd, and Kinsley betrays the same condescension, grumping about the effort required to get him to do his job. Only after receiving demands from hundreds of “strangers” did he do what any citizen would; only then did he bother to read “something called the Downing Street Memo,” the locution he uses to show his disdain for the people who asked him to function. And if you don’t find yourself struck by Kinsley’s bald condescension, we hope you’ll find yourself insulted when you read his account of the memo’s contents. “I don’t buy the fuss,” Kinsley writes. Then he starts to explain why that is:

    KINSLEY (2): Although it is flattering to be thought personally responsible for allowing a proven war criminal to remain in office, in the end I don't buy the fuss. Nevertheless, I am enjoying it, as an encouraging sign of the revival of the left. Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes a certain amount of ideological self-confidence. It takes a critical mass of citizens with extreme views and the time and energy to obsess about them. It takes a promotional infrastructure and the widely shared self-discipline to settle on a story line, disseminate it and stick to it.
    There you start to have it, readers! If you think the Downing Street memo may show or suggest that Bush was determined to invade Iraq early on, you have “a paranoid theory” and “extreme views”—and “the time and energy to obsess about them.” (This distinguishes you from Kinsley, who didn’t have the time or energy to read the memo until forced.) Indeed, throughout his piece, Kinsley keeps saying that you’re an “extremist” with “extreme views” if you’re bothered by this memo’s contents. Maybe now you’ll believe what we’ve told you about this bizarre, fallen man.


    In her book Watchdogs of Democracy: The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public, the late Helen Thomas made room for Kinsley:

    Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley decided that the classified minutes of the Blair meeting were not a "smoking gun."  He felt it was nor proof that Bush was determined to invade Iraq a year before he gave the green light.  "I don't buy the fuss," Kinsley said. 


    FAIR issued an action alert on the topic and noted:

    Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley opted for sarcasm over serious discussion, deriding activists in a June 12 column for sending him emails “demanding that I cease my personal cover-up of something called the Downing Street Memo.” Kinsley kidded that the fuss was a good sign for the Left: “Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes ideological self-confidence.”
    What does Kinsley mean by paranoid? Criticizing the Times for not giving the story much attention would be accurate: Prior to the Bush-Blair press conference, a Nexis search shows one story about the Downing Street minutes appeared in the paper nearly two weeks after the story broke (5/12/05), and that columnist Robert Scheer mentioned it a few days later (5/17/05).
    In fact, Kinsley’s mocking seemed to serve no purpose, since his fallback position is a familiar media defense: We all knew the Bush administration wanted war, so this simply isn’t news. As Kinsley put it, “Of course, you don’t need a secret memo to know this.” As for “intelligence and facts…being fixed around the policy,” Kinsley eventually acknowledged that “we know now that this was true.”

    So, to follow Kinsley’s logic: People who demand more Downing Street coverage have developed a “paranoid theory” that accurately portrays White House decision-making on Iraq. His only quarrel with what he calls a “vast conspiracy” pushing the mainstream media to take the memo more seriously is that the activists think such information is important, and should be brought to the attention of the public, whereas Kinsley–and apparently many others in the mainstream media–doesn’t “buy the fuss.”


    We need to note the realities of the hideous Michael Kinsley but we don't have time to include everyone.  He was widely called out.  One person we'll note is David Swanson who probably did more to raise awareness of the Downing Street Memo than anyone else in America.

    As part of the continued failure of Vanity Fair, they've added Kinsley to their staff.

    Worse, they let him weigh in on Iraq today,


    In many ways, "How the Bush Wars Opened the Door for ISIS" is the sort of crap that any idiot who ignored Iraq for the last 12 years could have churned out in their sleep.


    Any idiot.

    But Michael Kinsley is a special kind of idiot.

    Which is how he manages to write:


    And yes, the number of Americans in Iraq is relatively trivial, but President Obama has already agreed under pressure to increase troop levels, just long enough, you understand, to help wipe out the latest—and, seemingly, the worst—malefactor, the terrorist group known as ISIS.


    Is it trivial to you?

    Was it hard to tear away from your porn and type that sentence?



    In the November 10, 2014 Iraq snapshot, we dealt with Richard Brunt's lies about US troops being out of Iraq:


    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."

    Indeed.

    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.'


    [. . .]

    But this week, DoD issued the following:




    IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Release No: NR-599-14
    December 02, 2014

    DoD Identifies Air Force Casualty




      The Department of Defense announced today the death of an Airman who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
    Capt. William H. DuBois, 30, of New Castle, Colorado, died Dec. 1 when his F-16 aircraft crashed near a coalition air base in the Middle East. He was assigned to the 77th Fighter Squadron, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.

    For more information media may contact the 20th Fighter Wing Public Affairs Office at 803-895-2019.  




    Those three deaths?

    They aren't trivial to the service members' family and friends.

    They shouldn't be trivial to the country but Micheal Kinsley's a very busy stooge and he clearly has other concerns.




    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
    "FACT SHEET: U.S.-Iraq Cooperation"
    "New Records Reveal Revolving Door for People with ..."
    "Haider's in the US, Brett's giddy and wants a slee..."
    "tax time"
    "Should you pay taxes?"
    "Taxes"
    "They have to rip every penny from my mouth"
    "Harrison nailed it"
    "The tax cycle"
    "Tax day"
    "Tax Day"
    "Taxes"
    "Ice cream with those taxes"
    "The New Republic(an) wants to play"
    "THIS JUST IN! NEW REPUBLIC(AN) HAS ANOTHER OF ITS 'BRILLIANT' IDEAS!"





     
     

    Tuesday, April 14, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! NEW REPUBLIC(AN) HAS ANOTHER OF ITS 'BRILLIANT' IDEAS!



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


    LIKE CRANKY CLINTON, THE NEW REPUBLIC(AN) ISN'T FIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DUE TO IT'S SUPPORT OF THE IRAQ WAR.


    THAT'S NOT STOPPED CRANKY FROM RUNNING AND IT'S NOT STOPPED THE NEW REPUBLIC(AN) FROM BEING STUPID.


    THEY HAVE A NEW IDEA -- THESE GENIUSES -- THAT FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O SHOULD BE HILLARY'S RUNNING MATE.


    ONLY THE NEW REPUBLIC(AN) COULD BE THIS STUPID.


    ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHARGES AGAINST CRANKY AFTER HER IRAQ WAR SUPPORT (AND VOTE) IS THAT SHE'S A DYNASTY AND THE NATION HAS HAD BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH AND DOESN'T NEED CLINTON AGAIN.


    SO THE NEW REPUBLIC(AN) HOPES TO SWEETEN THE POT -- BY TOSSING IN FADED ROSE BARRY O.


    LIKE THE COUNTRY'S CLAMORING FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OF HIS NONSENSE.


    THE NEW REPUBLIC(AN), ALWAYS DROPPING ITS PANTS TO SHOW HOW TINY ITS BRAIN IS.








    FROM THE TCI WIRE:




    J. Dana Stuster (Foreign Policy) notes that the Washington Post's Jason Rezaian has been a prisoner of the Iranian government for eight months now.   The Washington Post's Marty Baron Tweets:






    Our statement on report that faces espionage charges: "product of fertile and twisted imaginations."
    136 retweets 21 favorites


    The linked to report includes this statement from Baron:


    It has been nearly nine months since Jason was arrested.   Now comes word via an Iranian news agency that Jason will face espionage charges. Any charges­ of that sort would be absurd, the product of fertile and twisted imaginations. We are left to repeat our call on the Iranian government to release Jason and, in the meantime, we are counting on his lawyer to mount a vigorous defense.



    J. Dana Stuster also notes:


    Separately, Reuters’ Baghdad bureau chief, Ned Parker, left Iraq this week after credible threats were made against his life. The threats followed a Reuters investigation into human rights abuses in the battle to retake Tikrit from the Islamic State and its aftermath. Parker was threatened on Facebook by people believed to be affiliated with Shia militias operating in Iraq and a television program funded by one of the militias “accused the reporter and Reuters of denigrating Iraq and its government-backed forces, and called on viewers to demand Parker be expelled.” The State Department has reportedly raised the issue of press intimidation with the Iraqi government, but a spokesperson for Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said that the safety of the press “has improved significantly since this prime minister took over” and encouraged members of the press to reach out to police if they are threatened.


    Ned Parker is a journalist who has long covered Iraq.  He distinguished himself first at the Los Angeles Times.  There, among other stories, he broke the news on Nouri al-Maliki's secret prisons. At Reuters, he's continued to break important stories.

    He also wrote two very important long form pieces in 2014: "Who Lost Iraq?" (POLITICO) and "Iraq: The Road to Chaos" (The New York Review of Books).



    Stars and Stripes notes:

    Three days later, the television station Al-Ahd, owned by the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, broadcast a report on Parker including his photo. The television report accused Parker and Reuters of defaming Iraq and urged viewers demand the reporter he expelled, Reuters said.
    An April 3 report by Parker and two colleagues detailed human rights abuses in Tikrit after government forces and Iranian-backed militias captured Tikrit from Islamic State militants. Reuters said two of its reporters saw an Islamic State fighter lynched by Iraqi national police. The report also described widespread looting and arson in the city, which local politicians blamed on Iranian-backed militias.


    James Gordon Meek (ABC News) adds, "The blatant killing of a prisoner in front of the journalists was one of the most alarming examples of the types of war crimes committed with apparent impunity by Iraqi Security Forces and uncovered in a six-month ABC News investigation that aired in March on "World News Tonight With David Muir." It also comes on the eve of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's White House huddle with President Obama on Tuesday."

    The State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted on Haider al-Abadi's arrival.






    Will the issue be raised during the visit?

    Probably not.

    The threats and attacks are not an isolated incident but part of a move to suppress and destroy journalism in Iraq.


    Two Sundays ago, we noted:

    NINA does not publish -- any longer -- violence on the day of.  It publishes reports the next day.  So right now you can't find out about Sunday's violence but come Monday you can.
    What's going on?
    Al Mada's doing nothing.
    It's a ghost of its former self.
    In that instance, it's supposedly agreed to silence its own voice to 'help' the new government.
    Many other outlets in Iraq are 'helping' or under intimidation.

    I've heard about [it] from Iraqis reporting for various outlets and kept waiting to see a major report on it from the west.  Instead, they don't even note it.
    Dar Addustour has been covering in reporting and, last week, columnist As Sheikh also weighed in.  Noting the problems facing the Iraqi press, he called for a fund to be set up to support the press and the freedom it is supposed to have.
    It is amazing that the press which managed to push back against thug Nouri al-Maliki is now a victim of Haider al-Abadi.
    In fairness to Haider, some -- like Al Mada -- are silencing themselves.  They think it's for 'the good' of the country (two different reporters for the paper have e-mailed about that -- they do not agree with the paper's policy).



    And Thursday's snapshot noted Haider al-Abadi's attack on the press -- in a speech the press covered, one he gave in Falluja, but somehow all the outlets covering the speech failed to cover Haider's attack on the press.

    By the 8th, when Ned Parker's picture was being broadcast on TV with a call to kill him, Haider was in Falluja declaring that there were elements of the media working against the struggle.

    The attacks on Ned Parker had already begun, the threats already publicly made and Haider deliberately threw gas on the fire.


    Haider did everything but call Ned Parker a member of the Islamic State.



    Saturday, his office issued this statement:




    Since Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi took office a series of significant steps have been taken to cultivate an environment where free speech is fostered in both local and foreign media. Bans on several networks have been lifted and journalists are encouraged to perform their job with freedom and integrity even when that entails criticising the government. When the Prime Minister's office was informed  of Mr Ned Parker's concerns over certain broadcasts and segments on local channels we immediately ensured that he was safe in his compound which is fortified and guarded by a well equipped Iraqi police force. We requested that Mr. Parker report to the police details of what he believed to be a serious threat on his life and offered him protection. The broadcasts on those channels were primarily directed against the Iraqi government accusing it of being too lenient on Reuters, which, in their view, had reported stories that were not accurate. We staunchly oppose any bullying, intimidation


    towards the media and any attempts to curb and encumber freedom of speech.
    We are committed to developing and bolstering a free press which we will take painstaking measures to protect, and is fundamental to our vision of a free and democratic Iraq.


    More empty words from a US-installed puppet who's accomplished nothing to point to with pride.


    You'll notice he doesn't mention his remarks in Falluja.

    You'll notice that it's the only press release in the last 7 days that he hasn't issued in English.

    Iraq's Ambassador to the US is Lukman Faily.  Today, he took questions online at Twitter.  We'll note this exchange with the Washington Post's Liz Sly.






    . After what happened to can you guarantee journalists won't be harassed/threatened by govt allies?
    15 retweets 9 favorites







    . freedom of expression is paramount to the new Iraq. Ensuring safety of foreign and Iraqi journalists is an obligation
    12 retweets 3 favorites






    . one of the first things PM Abadi did was to drop all pending lawsuits against journalists on behalf of the government
    9 retweets 2 favorites





    What's he doing now?


    Saturday, Iraq Times reported Haider's government has decided to shutter all radio stations and TV stations which are linked to government institutions or ministries.  The reason being given?  It's supposed to be a cost-saving measure.








    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Francis Boyle reacts to Hillary's announcement"
    "Can someone wake up Barack?"
    "Ben Harper and a sweet ride"
    "rickie lee jones"
    "The kill list"
    "The Good Wife"
    "Raul Loves Barry"
    "Here comes Rickie Lee!"
    "Sing, Cass, sing!"
    "Where is Sade?"
    "If I had time . . ."
    "Those cool gals"
    "Hillary's campaign slogan is Bow Down Bitches"
    "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY DECLARES 'BOW DOWN BITCHES!'"