Thursday, March 31, 2016

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON'S CRAZY HAIR!!!

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


THAT SHE PAYS PEOPLE TO CUT HER HAIR AND IT STILL LOOKS LIKE THAT!




Okay, so US troops are on the ground in Iraq to protect the innocent civilians from these Shi'ite militias?

Nope.

The US military is now hugging and dry humping these forces.


Ali Mamouri (AL-MONITOR) reports:


On March 12, US Consul General Steve Walker visited Al-Sadr Teaching Hospital in Basra to pay his respects to wounded members of the Popular Mobilization Units. The visit marked the first time a US official has publicly met these troops. This is particularly remarkable as until now, the official US position toward the Popular Mobilization Units was negative, and the United States had even demanded that the Iraqi government prevent the forces from taking part in the operations to liberate some areas, such as the city of Ramadi in Anbar, that were freed without their participation by US request. 
Walker made it clear that the trip was not just a courtesy visit. Accompanied by TV stations such as the US-based Alhurra, which broadcast the visit and his remarks in Arabic, Walker said, “The US recognizes the important contribution of the Popular Mobilization Units under the command of Prime Minister [Haider al-Abadi], and most of the Popular Mobilization troops came from the south. This is why I would like to express my condolences to the people of Basra and the south who have lost their loved ones or friends in the war against the Islamic State.”
Walker expressed his solidarity with the wounded, who welcomed his visit. He told them, “The US and Iraqi people are very, very proud of you.” 


General Steve Walker is dry humping these Shi'ite forces?

If you're not getting how disgusting this is, you're not familiar with these forces and what they've done to US forces in the not-so-long ago past.


For just one example, we'll drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:



This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

That's the League of Righteous.

That's who US General Steve Walker 'paid his respects' to.


They killed US soldiers. 

And now Walker has, on behalf of the US government and military, 'honored' them with praise.


Why are US forces in Iraq?


To die for an illegitimate government and to hug the very militias that killed other US troops.


Posted by at

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON STILL HAS A PLAN!

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



SHE CAN ALSO HAVE A WAVE OF PRAGMATISM FROM TIME TO TIME.

ONE SUCH WAVE HAS HER ASKING HER STAFF TO CHECK OUT EVERY "IF ELECTED, I WILL SERVE . . ." TYPE SPEECH EVER GIVEN WITH THE NOTION OF RECRAFTING THEM.

"IF INDICTED, I WILL SERVE THE PEOPLE BY . . ." IS HOW SHE WANTS IT REDONE AS SHE PREPARES FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT SHE MAY FACE A FEDERAL INDICTMENT.

"NOTHING," CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "WILL KEEP ME OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE."


There is no legitimate government in Iraq nor any legal one.

Where are the elections?

Per the Constitution, they should have taken place over a year ago.

Where are the elections?

And how can Barack justify sending US troops into the failed state of Iraq when it doesn't even have a government?


At the very least, he should have made any troops being sent in, any aid -- weapons or dollars conditional upon free and fair elections.

Iraq is a failed state.

The US troops are in Iraq to prop up the illegitimate government of Iraq.

In what world is this acceptable?

In the United States, elections are not postponed.

9/11 did not result in a loss of elections nor, for that matter, did the American Civil War.


What is Iraq's excuse?


As we asked in yesterday's snapshot, where are the elections?


We know where US troops are -- in Iraq with more to be deployed shortly.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON IS A SOFT COOKIE!

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

"HE'S TOO MEAN!!!" WHINES CRANKY CLINTON OF HER RIVAL FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS.


IF ELECTED PRESIDENT, WOULD CRANKY CLINTON THEN WHINE THAT SHE COULDN'T SPEAK TO VLADIMIR PUTIN BECAUSE HE WAS TOO MEAN?  TO ANGELA MERKEL BECAUSE SHE MADE A CRACK ABOUT CRANKY'S WEIGHT?


WHERE DOES IT END?



While the bombing has become a daily feature, at the US State Dept today, something different emerged.  In the midst of spokesperson John Kirby's daily nonsense, a participant refused to play along.




QUESTION: Yes. The Iraqi prime minister, Mr. Al-Abadi, has been pushing ahead for reform in its government, and he claims to reshuffle his own cabinet. I was curious about your position on these claims about Abadi has been trying to accomplish.


MR KIRBY: What you call claims I think are, in fact – you almost – it makes it sounds like he’s doing something wrong here. Prime Minister Abadi is --


QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


MR KIRBY: Prime Minister Abadi is trying to make necessary political reforms in his country and he has moved some officials around, and that’s the obligation, that’s the responsibility; those are the choices that a prime minister has to make. We continue to support his efforts to improve governance in Iraq and to enact appropriate reforms to try to facilitate that process.


QUESTION: But bringing what he calls technocrats into his cabinet at this moment would definitely make a lot of people angry because he is going to exclude a lot of party appointed into his government. How would you react to that?


MR KIRBY: Again, these are decisions that he has to make and his government has to make and the Iraqi people have to make, and those are internal decisions that we aren’t going to involve ourselves in each individual appointment that he makes. These are internal matters for Iraq to speak to and for him to speak to. In general, we support his efforts at reform and we support his efforts at trying to get a government in place – and keep a government in place – that can be responsive to the needs of the Iraqi people and can help them deal with the very real threat inside their own country represented by [the Islamic State].


QUESTION: So wait, wait. So this – the position of the U.S. is that you’re not going to interfere in the president – or the leader of a country, his choices for cabinet, but you will interfere in who the – or you will choose who should be the leader of the country, but once your selected person is in power, they can have whoever they want in the cabinet? Is that basically what --


MR KIRBY: Well, it was the Iraqi people that --


QUESTION: After you guys --


MR KIRBY: -- put Prime Minister Abadi in the position he’s in.


QUESTION: After the U.S. pulled the rug out from under --

MR KIRBY: We’re not – we don’t involve ourselves in the internal decisions of an electorate like that.

QUESTION: Except in Syria.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And --

MR KIRBY: No.

QUESTION: No?

MR KIRBY: How is that – I’m not sure I follow how we’re doing that in Syria.

Yeah.


John Kirby's not just an embarrassment, he's a damn liar.

In 2010, following the March elections and an eight month political stalemate, the US government gave Nouri al-Maliki a second term (even though he lost the 2010 election) via The Erbil Agreement.

In 2014, the US appointed/backed Haider al-Abadi to replace Nouri.


Reality: the Iraqi people did not vote on Haider.

Bigger reality:  Iraq is over two years later on national elections.

Is no one ever supposed to notice that?

John Kirby's lie brings attention to that reality.

Where are the national elections which should have taken place already?

Where are they, John Kirby?

More reality, what Haider's trying to do with the Cabinet?  It's not in the Constitution.

Strange how Kirby and company back the Constitution -- except when they don't.

Any observer of Iraq needs to be asking: Where are the national elections.

Every member of Parliament?

Their term has expired.

They were elected in the 2010 elections.

Where are the national elections?



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"






Posted by at

Sunday, March 27, 2016

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON LOSES HER GRIP!

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


THE FBI IS GEARING UP TO BEGIN INTERVIEWING PEOPLE IN CRANKY CLINTON'S INNER CIRCLE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY PROJECTED CONFIDENCE AND INSISTED, "I WILL GET THROUGH THIS.  I WILL GET THE NOMINATION OF MY PARTY FOR PRESIDENT AND I WILL GET THROUGH THIS JUST AS SURE AS I WON WASHINGTON STATE."

TOLD THAT SHE HAD LOST WASHINGTON, CRANKY SHOOK HER HEAD AND DECLARED, "JUST AS SURE AS I JUST WON THE STATE OF HAWAII."

TOLD SHE HAD ALSO LOST HAWAII TO SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, CRANKY INSISTED, "WELL, JUST AS SURE AS I AM THAT I WON ALASKA."

TOLD THAT SHE LOST ALASKA AS WELL, CRANKY TURNED RABID, BIT THE HEAD OFF A SMALL CHILD, SPROUTED WINGS, HORNS AND A TAIL AND FLEW OFF.



Meanwhile,  "The secretary and I both believe that there will be an increase to the U.S. forces in Iraq in the coming weeks."


This announcement was made by Gen Joseph Dunford at the press briefing he and Secretary of Defense Ash Cater held on Friday.



Q: The Marines this week in their support of the Iraqi offensive operation, is this something we will see more of, do you think, as time goes on in the fight to get to Mosul? And is -- can you talk about the accelerants that the secretary has talked about before and whether this is a key part of what you want to see the military do more of in Iraq over the next several months?


GEN. DUNFORD: I mean, Lita, we've talked I guess now for some months about setting the conditions for success in Mosul and -- and facilitating the Iraqi forces and staging around Mosul to begin to isolate Mosul, and as the Iraqis have announced, that has begun. These Marines that were there, the artillery battery that were there were in direct support of that. We put the -- we put the battery there to support the Americans that are there advising the Iraqi forces and also in a position to provide support to the Iraqi forces.

And from my perspective, this is no different than aviation fires we've been delivering. This happens to be surface fires -- (inaudible) -- artillery. But certainly no different conceptually than the fire support we've been providing to the Iraqis all along.

And with regard to further accelerants, the secretary and I do expect that there'll be increased capabilities provided to the Iraqis to set the conditions for their operations in Mosul. Those decisions haven't been made yet, but we certainly -- we certainly do expect more of the kinds of things that we saw in Ramadi, albeit a bit different tailored for operations in Mosul. But it's -- but again, the primary force fighting in Mosul will be Iraqi security forces and we'll be in a position to provide advise, assist and enabling capabilities to make them successful.

Q: It appears to be part of a -- more of a ground combat role than we've seen before.

GEN. DUNFORD: No, it's not. I mean, we have -- we have -- we have surface fires in Al Asad and other places, as an example, and we've used those in the past. And so this is not a fundamental shift in our approach to supporting the Iraqi forces. This happens to be what was the most appropriate tool that the commander assessed needed to be in that particular location.
[. . .]
Q: But General Dunford, we've just heard this week that there are actually 5,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq. Why is the Pentagon and senior military leadership reluctant to say that it's  more than 3,800?

GEN. DUNFORD: We're not reluctant, Jennifer. What we track is the number that are in our force management level. That's 3,800. But this is nothing that's inconsistent with what's been going on for the last 15 years in terms of people that are in and out on temporary duty less than a certain period of time, people that are in direct support of the embassy. Those have -- those have not been counted. In other words, there's a consistency in the way we've been counting people that's been going on for the last 15 years.

And at any given time, we have 3,800 directly in support of the mission. When units rotate, for example, we don't double-count those numbers, so if there's a unit of 200 that's being replaced by a unit of 200 and they both happen to be on the ground at the same time, we don't count that as 400, we haven't in the past 15 years, because that hasn't -- that hasn't counted against our force management level.

So the accounting of our people has been consistent. We're not denying that there's more people than 3,800; I think you got the numbers from us. But in terms of what we count in the mission, and that's in accordance with the direction that we've been given, the 3,800 is what's against the mission.

SEC. CARTER: Jim.

Q: (Off-mic.)

GEN. DUNFORD: No, I didn't say 5,000 was accurate, I said 3,800 was the force management level and there's some number above that on any given day as a result of people that support the embassy, people at a TDY and people in other categories that don't count against that 3,800.

SEC. CARTER: Jim?

Q: I'd like to follow up, if I could, on Lita's questions about the Marines and that fire base. Unlike the previous U.S. military combat positions and fire support, this is an independent base, these are U.S. military only. And by all indications, they are not just defensive, but in this latest movement by Iraqi forces, they provided fire support for offensive operations against ISIS. So why is this not the first footprint of a U.S. combat ground operation there in Iraq?

GEN. DUNFORD: Jim, the reason they're in a different base is simply a function of geometry. They're designed to support forces in an area called Makhmur. The artillery can't be co-located with the ground forces in Makhmur and provide effective fire support, so this position was selected because of the geometry necessary to support that particular location.

And with regard to providing support to Iraqi offensive capability, once again, I mean, to me, there's no inconsistency between what this artillery unit did and what our aviation support is doing every single day. I don't draw a distinction with it. In other words, we've said that we're providing enabling support to include combined arms capability to Iraqi forces as they conduct operations, which is exactly what this artillery unit was doing.

Q: Well, we have all indications that this is a pretty permanent position right now; that after a short period of time, U.S. Army personnel are going to replace the 26 MEU Marine there. And it still has all indications that the U.S. military is directly involved in the ground operations of -- with the U.S. -- with the Iraqi.

SEC. CARTER: Yes, maybe very quickly just say, even since last week now, as the Iraqis have started to consolidate their positions, the situation on the ground has changed in terms of where the Iraqis are in the relationship to the support, the defense of support they're providing to our artillery unit that's there. So that's already changed, you know, through the course of the week.

But in all honesty, I just cannot see this being inconsistent with everything that we've been doing over the last several months.

SEC. CARTER: And let me just add to that, what we'll be doing in coming months. This is our approach to eliminating ISIL from Mosul. The Iraqi Security Forces are the ones who are carrying out the assault, the envelopment, the assault, but we're helping them.

That's our -- that's been our approach and we'll continue to do that. Started in Ramadi, we'll continue to going up to Mosul. Carla?

Q: When do you anticipate seeing U.S. American ground forces closer to the front lines as the battle towards Mosul looms?

GEN. DUNFORD: Jim, one thing that I probably just need to clarify, this position is behind what is known as the forward line of troops for the peshmerga and Kurds. So it's by no means out in front on its own.

And secondly, what I would say about your question about the future is we have a series of recommendations that we will be discussing with the president in the coming weeks to further enable our support for the Iraqi security forces.

So again, the secretary and I both believe that there will be an increase to the U.S. forces in Iraq in the coming weeks. But that decision hasn't been made.

Nor -- you know, you alluded to decisions that have already been made about Army units replacing the Marine units. All that is pre-decision. There's been no decisions made about what's going to happen to this particular position in the future.

But it is going to be decided in the context of the broader issue that the secretary will bring to the president again, focused on what it is we need to do to maintain a minimum money campaign and what specifically do we need to do to enable operations in Mosul.


 "The secretary and I both believe that there will be an increase to the U.S. forces in Iraq in the coming weeks."


So much for Barack Obama's promise of no boots on the ground and of no US troops in combat.

Like every other promise, it was just another lie.


The last time I saw Richard was Detroit in '68
And he told me all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark café
You laugh he said you think you're immune
Go look at your eyes they're full of moon
You like roses and kisses and pretty men to tell you
All those pretty lies pretty lies
When you gonna realize they're only pretty lies
Only pretty lies just pretty lies
-- "The Last Time I Saw Richard," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on BLUE


Lies and more lies from Barack.


And lies have consequences.


On the 13th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, March, 19, 2016, another US service member died in Iraq.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Jobs"


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)