Thursday, April 28, 2016

THIS JUST IN! WHY WAIT ON WINNING A NOMINATION?

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

TODAY, TED CRUZ CONTINUES TRAILING IN THE RACE FOR THE G.O.P.'S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.

THAT DIDN'T STOP HIM FROM PICKING A RUNNING MATE: CARLY FIORINA.

IN UPCOMING MOVES, TED INTENDS TO SHOW UP AT THE WHITE HOUSE FRIDAY FOR AN UNANNOUNCED EARLY BREAKFAST, FOLLOWING WHICH HE WILL MEASURE THE OVAL OFFICE FOR DRAPES AND THEN GO SKINNY DIPPING IN THE WHITE HOUSE POOL.  

REPORTERS ARE INVITED AND TED NOTES THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO JOIN HIM IN SKINNY DIPPING BUT THEY DO HAVE TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS.






As if Iraq doesn't have enough drama all by itself, THE WASHINGTON POST attempts to create some.  Loveday Morris and Mustafa Salim insist, "Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi desperately tried to steer his country out of political turmoil on Tuesday, partially reshuffling his cabinet amid stepped-up pressure as thousands of protesters threatened to storm parliament."


We'll get to the 'protesters,' first "Haider al-Abadi desperately tried to steer his country out of political turmoil"?


The 'turmoil' is created by Haider.

The US-installed prime minister is not following the Iraqi Constitution.

Why is that so damn hard for reporters at THE WASHINGTON POST to be honest about?

Oh, that's right, for US press outlets, the State Dept line becomes 'fact.'

At least it does for the immediate time.

But let there be no mistake five years from now, when Americans all know the truth, that the truth was known then but these reporters and press outlets didn't convey it and let them be forced to explain why that was.

Haider has created any 'turmoil' by insisting that he needs a new Cabinet.

He's done at the bidding of the US government.

Let's move over to 'protesters.'

Threaten to storm the Parliament, did they?

The Parliament's in the Green Zone.

That would be the heavily fortified Green Zone.

Where Iraq's politicians hide out from the people.

It was almost breached shortly after Nouri al-Maliki became prime minister in 2006.  That was very scary for those hiding out in the Green Zone (which included US officials).

This caused anxiety and a flurry of measures being added to further fortify the Green Zone.

To storm the Parliament, these 'protesters' would first have to storm the Green Zone -- something no group has managed to do in over a decade of the Green Zone's existence.

Let's say that they managed to breach the Green Zone.

And then let's forget for a moment that the orders in place would be warning shots and then firing at those civilians trying to get into the Green Zone.

Let's just say that they managed to breach the Green Zone.

They then just waltz into the Parliament?

No.

The Parliament has its own set of security.

The notion that anyone was going to breach the Green Zone today and make it into the Parliament was never a genuine possibility.


Anyone saying otherwise is lying.

Again, Iraq has enough drama, there's no need to lie in order to create more.

The 'protesters' were followers of Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr who have repeatedly responded to his call to turn out to show support for Haider al-Abadi's proposals.

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"NINA"






Posted by at

Sunday, April 24, 2016

THIS JUST IN! SHE WINS HER WAY!

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


ASKED FOR HER THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER, CRANKY REPLIED, "EVERY VOTE FOR ME IS A VOTE THAT COUNTS, A WISE VOTE, A NEEDED VOTE, AN IMPORTANT VOTE.  I WILL GLADLY ACCEPT ALL THE VOTES I WIN AND ALL THE VOTES I STEAL."



The United States still has 4,000 troops in Iraq, nearly five years after President George W. Bush agreed with the then-Iraqi government that all U.S. troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. President Obama pledged to end the war in Iraq as part of his 2008 election campaign, a promise he has not fulfilled, bending to pressure from the Pentagon and Washington’s other advocates of a continued U.S. military presence.
In principle, U.S. troops are in Iraq in the context of advising and supplying Iraqi armed forces, not in a combat role. However, it emerged last month that Marines maintain an independent fire base in northern Iraq and are expected to play a critical role in carrying out the plan of Iraqi forces to free Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, from Islamic State in Iraq and Syria control. ISIS has held Mosul since June, 2014.

The Iraq War never ends.

Nor do Hillary Clinton's excuses for voting it and supporting it through 2007.

By contrast, Senator Bernie Sanders voted against it.

At a Baltimore rally today, Harper Neidig (THE HILL) reports, Senator Bernie Sanders declared, "The most important foreign policy debate in the modern history of this country took place in 2002 over the war in Iraq. I listened very carefully to what President Bush and Dick Cheney and the others had to say. I did not believe them, I helped lead the opposition.  Secretary Clinton heard the same evidence that I did; she voted for that war.  As secretary of State, she initiated and helped lead the effort to help overthrow the government of Libya, which brought mass instability to that region."


Thursday, War Hawk Hillary Diane appeared on ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA to sputter:


Well, I guess my-my greatest regret, uhm, was, uh, voting to give President Bush authority in Iraq.  Uhm, it did not turn out the way I thought it would based on what he had said, uh, and I regret that.  I've said it was a mistake and, uh, obviously, uh, it's something I-I wish hadn't turned out the way it did.


Even she couldn't get it out in a believable manner.


Stumbling and sputtering, she tried to rewrite history yet again.


In the face of Hillary's latest revision, it's worth again noting Stephen Zunes providing reality about Hillary's Iraq history:

1. “Hillary Clinton’s vote wasn’t for war, but simply to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.”
At the time of vote, Saddam Hussein had already agreed in principle to a return of the weapons inspectors. His government was negotiating with the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission on the details, which were formally institutionalized a few weeks later.  (Indeed, it would have been resolved earlier had the United States not repeatedly postponed a UN Security Council resolution in the hopes of inserting language that would have allowed Washington to unilaterally interpret the level of compliance.)
Furthermore, if then-Senator Clinton’s desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn’t have voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Clinton voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
In fact, unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion. Despite the UN weapons inspectors having not found any evidence of WMDs or active WMD programs after months of searching, Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country. “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war,” Clinton said in a statement, “and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”

When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.” She insisted that Iraq was somehow still “in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions” and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to “neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”



Julia Sharpe-Levine (HUFFINGTON POST) adds:

 Her assertion that her vote for the Iraq War was “the best decision I [could’ve made] with the information I had” is deceitful considering that prior to voting, she neglected to read the 92-page classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction circulated to the Senate for review by the Bush administration. The NIE went into great detail about the objections raised by the State Department and Department of Energy to claims of nuclear-weapons in Iraq, and led multiple senators, including Bob Graham of Florida, to vote against the war resolution.


Bully Boy Bush tricked her, she whined this week.

But how stupid do you have to be to be in order to be tricked by Bully Boy Bush?

More to the point, how can you be 'tricked' when you don't even do the basic work required?

Hillary voted without doing the National Intelligence Estimate?

Well, no one's ever accused her of possessing an overabundance of intelligence.


Retired Lt Col William Astore (HUFFINGTON POST) observes:
No more nonsense about being a touchy-feely progressive like Bernie Sanders.  It’s time for Hillary the Hawk to take charge and soar, preempting any criticism by Republicans that she’ll be “weak” on defense.
But, tell me again, how did America’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere go for the United States?  At least three trillion dollars lost, tens of thousands of U.S. troops killed and wounded, hundreds of thousands of “foreigners” killed and wounded, millions made refugees, and for what, exactly?
Hillary the Hawk wants to double-down on a losing hand.  That’s neither “aggressive” nor “tough”: It’s reckless and dumb.  Worst of all, she’s playing with our chips as well as the lives of our troops, not to mention the lives of all those “foreigners” seeking shelter from American bombs and bullets and drones.  (But we have a word for them: collateral damage.)



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)