Thursday, December 03, 2015

THIS JUST IN! AT LAST AN EXCUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN BUY!

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


"SO WHAT?" SAYS CRANKY CLINTON, "SO WHAT!"

WHEN NOT DOING HER BEST BRANDO, SHE CAN BE FOUND NAPPING. 


BUT TODAY, SHE ROCKED OUT OF HER GOLDEN SLUMBER BY JUDICIAL WATCH'S RELEASE OF HER BENGHAZI E-MAILS:

“These new Benghazi emails are disturbing and show why Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration had to be forced to disclose them,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Hillary Clinton, despite knowing that terrorists were responsible for the attack, allowed her spokesman to go to the Arab world and blame an Internet film.  Hillary Clinton trafficked in fantastical conspiracy theories that suggested both American conservatives and Israel were to blame for the Benghazi attack and jihadist violence in the Muslim world.  And the crazed email from Sidney Blumenthal shows that she was taking direction on her Benghazi spin based upon attack-style presidential campaign politics.  Finally, the ‘I just got up’ email shows that, smack dab in the middle of the Benghazi crisis, Hillary Clinton fell behind and may have not been fully briefed as she began an intense round of phone calls to foreign leaders.”


"I LIKE TO SLEEP," CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS.

THEN SHE SHOOK HER HEAD AND INDICATED SHE WANTED TO GO AGAIN.

CLEARING HER THROAT, SHE INSISTED, "I HAPPEN TO NEED MY BEAUTY SLEEP!"


CHUCKLING, SHE SAID, "THAT'S IT.  LET'S SEE THEM TRY TO ARGUE WITH ME ON THAT ONE."





WSWS treated Carter's announcement as real news with Niles Williamson and Thomas Gaist reporting:


Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced Tuesday that the US plans to deploy a new contingent of Special Forces to Iraq to carry out military operations against ISIS targets throughout the country as well across the border in Syria. The US ground force will include at least 200 commandos, according to an AFP report published late Tuesday.
Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee alongside Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Carter said a “specialized expeditionary targeting force” would be deployed to assist the Iraqi military and Kurdish Peshmerga forces in retaking territory from ISIS.
According to Carter, these soldiers will work with Iraqi and Kurdish forces to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIS leaders throughout Iraq. They will also, Carter said, conduct “unilateral operations” in Syria. “We are at war,” he told the assembled House of Representatives members.

Dunford told the committee that the new force would increase the effectiveness of military operations in Iraq and Syria and accelerate the collection of intelligence on ISIS operations. “We’re fighting a campaign across Iraq and Syria so we’re going to go where the enemy is, and we’re going to conduct operations where they most effectively degrade the capabilities of the enemy,” he stated.



We covered the hearing in yesterday's snapshot -- emphasizing Carter's Iraq remarks, US House Rep Loretta Sanchez's line of questioning and US House Rep Walter Jones embarrassing himself.

Ann offered her thoughts on the hearing's big news in "Yeah, I blame Jill Stein," Stan offered his in "Thanks for screwing up TV, Barack," Marcia with "New and old" and Betty with "Barack's a damn liar."

And reporting on the hearing, Cedric's "Hank Johnson's sexual obsession with Barack" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! HANK HIS JOHNSON!" covered US House Rep Hank Johnson wasting everyone's time to profess his strangely sexual obsession with Barack and Carter and Gen Joe Dunford refusing to indulge Johnson,  At Rebecca's site, Wally reported on Ranking Member Adam Smith  in "Even House Democrats are criticizing Saint Barack.(Wally)," at Trina's site Ava reported on the obsession with oil that was at the heart of the hearing in "It's still about the oil," Mike reported on US House Rep Niki Tsongas offering some realities about the so-called coalition in "US Armed Services Committee hearing offers a little bit of reality," Ruth reported on US House Rep John Kline's questioning which established that there was no cap on the number of US troops that could be in Iraq "Iraq still matters,"  Kat took on the surreal aspect with "The US just declared war on everyone but Santa," and Elaine covered one time anti-war US House Rep Jackie Speier making an idiot of herself in statements and dress with "The idiot Jackie Speier,"




    •  
    Today, we'll cover another exchange from the hearing.

    The Iraq War is the never-ending war.

    When does it end?

    That was an issue raised in Tuesday's hearing.



    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: Mr. Secretary, if we are indeed at war, how will we know when we have won?


    Secretary Ash Carter:  The destruction of ISIL involves their destruction from any territory they claim to uh-uh claim to occupy and their destruction elsewhere around the world -- including their various branches and so forth -- that's the --

    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke: So as long as ISIL's in Iraq or Syria or Libya or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world, we will still be at war?

    Secretary Ash Carter: I believe that in today's world uh-- One -- It -- uh -- These treats are difficult to confine to one place and that is the reason why we have to go there and why we have to go to Syria and Iraq and strike at it and strike at other places where it is.  It's in the nature of today's world: Mobility among people you see this underlying this and, above all, mobility of information which can radicalize people who've never gone anywhere except in there -- on their keyboard.

    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  I think it's important if we are at war to define the clearest and the most precise terms of what victory looks like.  With 15 years of Afghanistan in mind, with the fact that we've been in Iraq off and on since 2003 -- or you can take it all the way back to 1991, to keep us out of perpetual war, I think it's really important that we explicitly define the objectives and the outcomes for which we're fighting.  I think we owe that to our service members, I think we owe that to ourselves.  And I would hope that we could come up with a better definition of victory and success.  I appreciate that you acknowledge the importance of political and diplomatic components of a solution in Iraq or in Syria, but I'm interested in your response to a question asked by Mr. Gibson in terms of conditionality.  There's so much in those countries -- I'll just use Iraq as an example -- that we do not control, cannot control and will not be able to predict when it comes to the political outcomes and so when we say we are going to set conditions on our aid, when we say we are going to set conditions on our military presence, do we really mean that?  Is that a viable threat?  Will we really walk away from Iraq if the government there doesn't meet those conditions?  And I think that's an important question because if, in fact, we will not, then I wonder what the motivation is there for the Iraqi government to take the very important and very difficult steps to integrate these other minorities -- whether they be Kurds, whether they be Sunnis -- into a functioning government -- decentralized or otherwise?


    Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, first of all with respect to the first part of your question, uhm, the -- It -- The -- Your point gets back -- is exactly the military and the political going together.  In addition to the -- The only end state that involves the lasting defeat of ISIL is one in which there are -- whether there is local governance that cannot be once again supplanted by ISIL.  That's why once again the political and the military go together -- that's the heart of the strategy and that's why enabling committed, capable forces who can make victory stick is the other part of the definition of victory, critical --

    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  Yes.

    Secretary Ash Carter (Con't):  -- to the strategy. With respect to the leverage, I'll start there in Baghdad but the leverage involves offering to do more for those who are pursuing the same objectives and withholding our support from those who are taking a different path or not going down the path they're supposed to.  So we find alternatives, we find people that can act.  If-if-if the people that we're dealing with are not capable of -- because we have to act and we will find such forces that are capable.

    US House Rep Beto O'Rourke:  Very quickly, for General Dunford, what does ISIS want us to do and how does that factor into our strategy for confronting them.

    Gen Joe Dunfurd:  ISIS wants us to be impetuous right now as opposed to being aggressive and they would love nothing more than a large presence of US forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria so that they could have a call to jihad. 




    Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"


    Posted by at

    Wednesday, December 02, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! HANK HIS JOHNSON!

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

    IN TUESDAY'S HOUSE ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE HEARING, THE AWARD FOR MOST EMBARRASSING WENT, AS USUAL, TO GEORGIA'S HANK JOHNSON.

    WHILE EVERYONE ELSE FOCUSED ON IRAQ OR SYRIA, HANKY FOCUSED ON HIS CRUSH, INSISTING THAT SPEAKING YOUR OPINION HURTS FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O AND HELPS THE TERRORISTS.

    HE ATTEMPTED TO FORCE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER TO AGREE WITH HIM BUT CARTER SAID THAT THE MILITARY NEEDED TO STAY OUT OF POLITICS.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, HANKY JOHN TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I JUST WANT SOME PRESIDENTIAL PEEN.  IS THAT SO WRONG?  I JUST WANT TO WORSHIP MY LOVE GOD BARRY O WITH MY TONGUE.  REPEATEDLY.  FROM STEAM TO TIP.  I WANT HIM TO FEEL THE KIND OF LOVE THAT ONLY I CAN PROVIDE.  IS THAT SO WRONG?"




    Ash Carter is the US Secretary of Defense.  We'll open with some remarks by him today.


    Secretary Ash Carter:  As I've discussed with you in the past, the United States strategy requires leveraging all of the components in our nation's might to destroy ISIL, every instrument of national power -- diplomatic, military, intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, economic, informational -- is engaged and every national security agency is contributing to one of the strategies, lines of effort.  We're defending the homeland, acting to defeat ISIL in its core in Syria and Iraq, and taking appropriate action where ever else in the world this evil organization metastasizes. Now the Defense Dept contributes to nearly all the lines of effort but protecting the homeland is among our highest priorities.  We're adapting to meet ISIL's threat -- including ensuring the security of Defense Dept installations and personnel. And just last week, I hosted some of the top national security law enforcement individuals at the Pentagon to discuss efforts to cut off the flow of foreign fighters.  But we at the Defense Dept, of course, are centrally responsible for the military campaign which will be the focus of my statement to this community. Through our own action, and those of our coalition partners, the military campaign will destroy ISIL's leadership and forces, deprive it of resources and safe haven and mobility.  All the while, we seek to identify and then enable motivated, local forces on the ground to expel ISIL from its territory, hold and govern it and ensure that victory sticks.  That's the right strategic approach for two particular reasons.  First, it emphasizes the necessity of capable, motivated, local forces as the only force that can ensure a lasting victory.  Such forces are hard to find but they do exist and we are enabling them and we're constantly looking for ways to expand doing so -- and I will describe some of them -- but we cannot substitute for such forces. And second, this strategic approach sets the conditions for a political solution to the civil war in Syria and the crippling sectarianism in Iraq which are the only durable ways to prevent an ISIL-like organization from re-emerging.  And that's why the diplomatic work, led by Secretary [John] Kerry and the State Dept is the first and absolutely critical line of effort in our strategy.  We're gathering momentum on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq.  And today, I'll describe how the US is continuing to accelerate the military campaign against ISIL and what more we're asking of our global partners. While I can't describe everything in this unclassified setting, I do want to take a few extra moments this morning to give as much detail as possible about the new things that we're doing to accelerate ISIL's defeat. We're at war.  We're using the might of the finest fighting force the world has ever known.  Tens of thousands of US personnel are operating in the broader Middle East region -- more on the way.  We have some of our most advanced Air-Naval forces attacking ISIL.  US troops are advising and assisting ground operations in Syria and Iraq.  I'll briefly describe some of these efforts and how we're accelerating them.  First, in northern Syria . . . [you are reading an "Iraq snapshot," our focus is Iraq].  In northern Iraq, Peshmerga units with the help of US air power and advisors have retaken the town of Sinjar cutting the main line of communication between Raqqa and Mosul -- the two largest cities under ISIL's control.  To move people and supplies, ISIL must now rely on backroads where we locate and destroy them.  Elsewhere in Iraq, we have about 3,500 troops at six locations in Iraq in support of Iraqi  security forces, the ISF.  There we've been providing increased lethal fire and augmenting the existing training, advising and assisting program.  And we're prepared to do more as Iraq shows capability and motivation in the counter ISIL fight in resolving its political divisions.  The progress in the Sunni portions of Iraq, as mentioned by Mr. [US House Rep Adam] Smith, as the campaign to recapture Ramadi shows, has been slow -- much to our and Prime Minister [Haider al-] Abadi's frustration. Despite his efforts, sectarian politics and Iranian influence have made building a multi-sectarian Iraqi security force difficult with some notable exceptions such as the US-trained counter-terrorism forces We continue to offer additional US support of all kinds and urge Baghdad to support, enroll, train and arm and pay Sunni Arab fighters as well as local Sunni Arab police forces to hold territory recaptured from ISIL.  All these efforts -- from northern Syria through Iraq -- have shrunk the ISIL controlled territory in both.  Importantly, we now have an opportunity to divide ISIL's presence in Iraq from that in Syria.  This could be important because, while both countries are plagued by ISIL, each, as I said earlier, has different political pathologies that provide the opportunity for extremism and they ultimately require different kinds of political progress to ensure lasting victory. Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL.  These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.  This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations in Syria. That creates a virtuous cycle of better intelligence which generates more targets, more raids, more momentum.  The raids in Iraq will be done at the invitation of the Iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the ISF capability.  Next, we're also significantly expanding US attacks on ISIL infrastructure and sources of revenue -- particularly its oil revenue. Over the past several weeks, because of improved intelligence and understanding of ISIL's financial operations, we've intensified the air campaign against ISIL's  war-sustaining oil enterprise -- a critical pillar of ISIL's financial infrastructure.  In addition to destroying fixed . . . 


    Yeah, yeah, yeah.

    The key moment above is:

    Next, in full coordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialized, expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces and put even more pressure on ISIL.  These special operators will, over time, be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture ISIL leaders.  


     Remember when this was supposed to Iraq's fight?

    And no US forces would be in combat?


    Remember those words from US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama?



    This was a key moment.  It sailed right over everyone.

    Carter was speaking



    "In full co-ordination with the government of Iraq, we're deploying a specialised expeditionary targeting force to assist Iraqi and Kurdish Peshmerga forces,"


    Carter was speaking at today's US House Armed Services Committee hearing.  Also offering testimony was Gen Joe Dunford, Chair of the Joint Chiefs.  The Committee Chair is US House Rep Mac Thornberry, the Ranking Member is US House Rep Adam Smith.


    US House Rep Walter Jones:  Before I get to the question, I want to remind the American people what James Madison said, the power to declare war -- including the power of judging the causes of war -- is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature -- not the executive branch, but the legislature.  I would like to ask you and Gen Dunford, in this undertaking of trying to defeat the evil group ISIL, would it help your cause if the Congress met its Constitutional responsibility of debating a new AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force]? [. . .]

    Secretary Ash Carter: It would show to our troops that their country was behind them.  I think they know we're behind them [gestures to himself and Dunford].  I think they know you're behind them.  would this show that the country was behind them in their effort?  I think they deserve to know that and for that reason I think it's desirable to have an AUMF.  The only thing I'd say is the lawyers tell me  that we don't technically need one.  We can conduct what we need to do within the law.  But I think it would be helpful principally because I-I-I think you can't do enough to show the troops that we're behind them.


    So Carter doesn't think the military believes the American people support them?  He thinks they believe that he does support them and the Congress does but not the American people?

    Hmm.

    Well let's pretend that's a valid thought -- exactly how does Congress voting on an AUMF alter that alleged belief?

    It doesn't.

    He was a real stooge.

    And I find it really telling that these people, paid by the US taxpayers, go out in public and insult the American people.

    I find it really telling that they openly display their contempt and disregard for democracy.

    And "they" includes Walter Jones who apparently shoved a freedom fry in his brain.

    No one needed him to come to the hearing with his prepared talking points.

    I guess actually listening and asking about what is being discussed was too much for the little tyke so instead he has his staff look up a quote and he pretended he gave a damn about it.

    But if he gave a damn about the Congress' right to declare war, he would need to give a damn about the American people and when Carter's playing the card of you-and-me-we-support-the-military-but-that-stinking-public-doesn't, if Jones actually understood the points Madison was making, he would've  objected to Carter's smear on the people of American instead of grinning like an idiot and nodding along.

    Apparently, all that mattered was he got his prepared comment -- passed off as a question -- before the cameras.

    So unimportant was the whole thing to him -- including the deployment of more US forces and their role in combat in Iraq -- that he rushed to boast he was going to yield 51 seconds back.

    What a proud moment for Walter Jones -- a man who spent the last years apologizing for his idiotic support of the illegal war but so quick to jump back on board with it today.

    And, of course, yet again the lie is pimped that you can only back the military by supporting war.

    I thought Walter Jones rejected that in the aftermath of his freedom fries nonsense.


    Apparently, any intelligence he later showed was somehow transitory and vanished in his lust for more war.


    Not everyone was avoiding all issues.  We'll note this exchange.


    US House Rep Loretta Sanchez:  You said that we are arming the Kurds.  The last time I spoke to [KRG President Mahmoud] Barzani, he suggested that they needed heavier duty weapons versus light arms.  And so my question -- my first question -- would be what are we arming them with?  I mean, is this really for the battlefield that they find?  Secondly,  I'd like you to address this whole issue with respect to the Iraqi army and the inability for us to get integrated -- or for Iraq's government to get it integrated.  I remember back in the -- under the Constitution and the whole issue of, for example, having a vote on the Kurd area being an independent entity, for example.  That was something that I continued to ask our military leaders at the time who were overseeing Iraq and the reality was they kept saying, 'That's the hardest part, that's the hardest part, we're going to get to it.'  And we never got to it before we were gone.  Now we see the fruits of that in that we are still not able to have a military that -- or police force -- that's very integrated.  So what do we do about that?   Uhm, so we've been taking  back territory in Iraq and one of the issues that we had is it always takes additional -- I mean, we need to leave troops there or we need to leave somebody there in order to hold onto it. Otherwise, we end up losing that territory.  So what is our strategy to do that?  And the recruitment effort.  I would like -- and I'm sure that it would be not within the public realm, but I would love to get briefed on the cyber issues and how we're countering the recruitment with respect to ISIS, ISIL, whatever you want to call them. these days, from a global perspective.  But in particular are we doing anything that you can talk about in this setting with respect to the recruiting effort in the region itself?  And lastly, DIME -- Diplomacy, Intelligence, Military, Economic.  You know, it's not just military that we need here.  So, Secretary, if you could speak a little to what are some of the other efforts we're doing to counter-act what is really something we need to eliminate which is ISIS.  Thank you.

    Secretary Ash Carter: Uh-uh, Congresswoman Sanchez, I'll touch two of the points and ask-ask the Chairman especially with respect -- with-with respect to arming the Kurds -- if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman -- and-and-and generally the Iraqi security forces.  Uhm, you talk about DIME?  Absolutely, it is essential that we recognize even though we -- uhh-uhh, I believe this is absolutely true -- are the center of the campaign because there must be a military defeat of ISIL.  And I also believe that, uh, Iraq and Syria since it is the heart of ISIL, we have to defeat it there.  That said, this is a global fight, it's a multi-dimensional fight, it's in the intelligence sphere, it's in the homeland security sphere, it's in the law enforcement sphere.  And I'm not going to [have] much more to say about that except that I have begun to convene, uh, with Secretary Kerry -- and I appreciate his cooperation, in this regard -- all of the agencies and going through what we're all doing -- making sure that the right hand knows what the left is. So in cyber, you're right I can't talk about it here.  I'm happy to come give you a classified briefing.  But we are linked up.  That's very important.  The FBI.  Jim Comey. Homeland Security.  The intelligence community.  Uh-uh and-and our DoD people.  Last thing I'll say is you ask, we thought about a hold force, a-uh-ugh necessity for a hold force is at the root of our strategy. Our strategy is to find, identify and enable forces that can not only take territory but hold territory because we are -- we know from the last fourteen years that that's the tricky part.  The hard part about getting victory to stick is to find people who can hold territory and govern it decently so that the likes of ISIL don't come back.  And-and as I said, they're hard to find.  They do exist but they're hard to find.  And we're going to try to make a snowball and get more.  Chairman?

    Gen Joe Dunford: Congresswoman, with regard to the Kurds, the Kurds have, as you know -- you've been there many times, a full range of weapons and heavy vehicles and [. . .]

    There was nothing to answer her question regarding what the Kurds were being supplied with and time ran out so he was shut down.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




    Posted by at

    Monday, November 30, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! SOME SAY HE'S A BABY!

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

    HE'S BEING CALLED "OBUMMER" BUT MOST BELIEVE FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS REALLY JUST A BIG OL' TITTY BABY.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O OFFERED THIS REBUTTAL, "WAH!  WAH!"





    Today, the US government announced:


    Strikes in Iraq
    Bomber, fighter, attack, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Baghdadi, two strikes destroyed two ISIL rocket rails and damaged a third ISIL rocket rail and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Albu Hayat, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

    -- Near Mosul, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL mortar position and four ISIL fighting positions.

    -- Near Ramadi, seven strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL home-made explosives cache, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL boat, an ISIL vehicle-borne bomb, two ISIL buildings, an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL ammo cache, two ISIL weapons caches, and an ISIL fighting position.


    -- Near Sinjar, four strikes struck three separate tactical units and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions and three ISIL vehicles.



    The bombings have no positive effect.



    They do, however, terrorize the Iraqi people.


    For example, ALSUMARIA reports the Anbar Provincial Council issued a statement today decrying the bombing by warplanes flying over Falluja and notes that these bombs are effecting the lives of civilians and contributing to the deaths of "women and children and the elderly."  Civilians in Falluja are calling for an end to the bombings and safe passage out of Falluja.

    Anbar is largely Sunni and what's taking place there in the so-called name of 'liberation' is not seen as such by everyone.









    • It's funny, isn't it, how when Iraqis object to actions by Bully Boy Bush, we on the left rush to insist that they be heard.  But when they're not pleased with Barack, we turn our backs on them and act like they weren't speaking.

    Or we whine about the US government interfering in an election but when Barack Obama overturned the results of Iraq's 2010 election, we fall silent.


    It's because so many of us lack ethics and integrity.





    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)