Thursday, September 08, 2016

THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S A CATTY LITTLE GIRL!

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

FADED CELEBRITY AND FOREVER BITCH BARRY O DECLARED TODAY THAT DONALD TRUMP'S IDEAS WERE "WACKY" -- THEREBY REMINDING AMERICA OF WHEN WHITNEY HOUSTON -- WHO WOULD DIE OF DRUG ABUSE -- WAS INTERVIEWED BY DIANE SAWYER AND LIED AS SHE INSISTED SHE DID NOT DO CRACK.


REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST ASKED, "AIN'T IT SHOCKING WHAT LOVE CAN DO?  AIN'T IT SHOCKING WHAT LOVE CAN DO?"

EARNEST THEN WAVED AS HE MOONWALKED OUT OF THE PRESS BRIEFING ROOM.





Hillary's evolving explanations on her e-mails are noted in THE WASHINGTON POST fact check.

Again, despite multiple questions, she was allowed to repeatedly alter history.

For those whining -- and some are -- that the e-mails were even raised -- hold a real press conference, quit running from the revelations.

It's on her, she's a lousy campaigner.


QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, as an Army veteran, a commander-in- chief's to empathize with servicemembers and their families is important to me. The ability to truly understand implications and consequences of your decisions, actions, or inactions. How will you determine when and where to deploy troops directly into harm's way, especially to combat ISIS?

LAUER: As briefly as you can.

CLINTON: We have to defeat ISIS. That is my highest counterterrorism goal. And we've got to do it with air power. We've got to do it with much more support for the Arabs and the Kurds who will fight on the ground against ISIS. We have to squeeze them by continuing to support the Iraqi military. They've taken back Ramadi, Fallujah. They've got to hold them. They've got to now get into Mosul.

We're going to work to make sure that they have the support -- they have special forces, as you know, they have enablers, they have surveillance, intelligence, reconnaissance help.

They are not going to get ground troops. We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops. So those are the kinds of decisions we have to make on a case-by-case basis.

And, remember, when I became secretary of state, we had 200,000 troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm very grateful that we have brought home the vast majority of those. We have a residual force, as you know, in Afghanistan. We have built up several thousands of the folks that I've talked about who are assisting in the fight against ISIS.

But it is in our national security interest to defeat ISIS. And I intend to make that happen.



They are not going to get ground troops?

They have thousands of US troops -- and that's before you factor in Special Ops.

And she knows that.

And she lies.

Here's NPR's fact check on her no ground troops claim:



Is that a promise she could keep as president?
The Short Answer
No.
The Long Answer
Clinton has outlined a policy on ISIS that would pick up where President Obama's policy left off. Today, there are about 5,000 American troops in Iraq and several hundred deployed to northern Syria. They include special operations forces who are helping the Kurdish, Arab and other indigenous fighters, plus advisers, support troops and others. The White House doesn't count them as "ground troops," and evidently neither does Clinton, but they are serving close to the combat zone.
U.S. service members have been killed as part of the fight against ISIS both on the ground and as part of the ongoing U.S. airstrikes. They've also found themselves in potential peril from airstrikes by Syrian and Russian warplanes, which are operating in Syria in support of the regime of President Bashar Assad. The Pentagon issued a stern warning to Damascus and Moscow to keep their aircraft well clear of where American troops in Syria are working on the ground to support indigenous forces in the fight against ISIS. American fighter aircraft have also tried to warn off Syrian and Russian warplanes.
Clinton's promise about "ground troops" appeared to echo Obama's opposition to using large numbers of American forces to get into direct combat with ISIS. So although American special operations troops are helping Iraqi commanders plan their operations, and American pilots are flying overhead to spot targets or attack them, and American artillery is shelling ISIS positions, none of them count as "ground troops" under this construction.
The U.S. has spent about $9 billion on the fight in Iraq and Syria since August of 2014, according to the Defense Department. American warplanes, both drone and human-piloted, have conducted about 15,000 airstrikes in both countries.
Clinton said Wednesday at the forum, held in New York and televised on NBC, that defeating ISIS was her "highest counterterrorism goal," and that she wanted to do it with "air power" and "with much more support for the Arabs and Kurds who are in the fight ... we have to squeeze them." Clinton also promised that if she's elected she'll order what she called "an intelligence surge," which she said would involve helping U.S. intelligence agencies collect more information and distribute it "more quickly down the ladder" to state and local law enforcement agencies, in hopes of preventing terror attacks.


And nothing she spoke of goes to the issue of eliminating the Islamic State.

You do that by stripping them of anything they have that can make them look like a savior.

So you make demands on the Iraqi government to stop persecuting the Sunnis.

You make them abide by what they have agreed to.

You make them carry that out.

How?

You withhold money if they won't do it, you stop sending F-16s if they won't do it, on and on and on.

Hillary, despite being Secretary of State for four years, has only one answer: War!



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




  • Sunday, September 04, 2016

    THIS JUST IN! SYD LOVES HILL!

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


    SO SHE'S JUST AN ALL AROUND FAILURE.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, SYD TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I REGRET THAT I HAVE BUT TWO ORIFICES TO GIVE FOR MY QUEEN."




    Which brings us to The Clinton Foundation.


    Iraq War cheerleader Matty Y has a stupid article where he whines that Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were treated differently.  Bob Moobs Somerby rushes in to nurse Matty Y and insist it is because Hillary's a Democrat.

    I'm so sick of what may be whoring and/or binary thinking.

    It's either/or with this undereducated crowd who think they know something and never have known a damn thing.

    Again, Bob, you're welcome.  I'm glad I taught you about narrative so that you can finally stop embarrassing yourself in that regard.  You are welcome.

    But you're still too much of an idiot.

    What's the difference between Hillary and Colin?

    It's not political.

    It's not even race.

    Colin is a retired general.

    Sandy Berger is a disgraced pundit for what he did (smuggling out documents in his underwear).  David Petraeus is someone the press still rushes to prop up -- despite his handing over classified documents to his mistress.

    What's the difference?

    It's not gender.

    It's not race.

    It has nothing to do with politics.

    It has everything to do with the media's worship of the military.

    I don't worship, sorry.

    Colin's never gotten a pass here.

    But I am aware of his efforts to whitewash War Crimes in Vietnam and am aware that his ugly record goes back very far.

    And that the media has refused to challenge him and instead applauded him.

    Does that surprise you?

    Only if you're uneducated.

    In 1961, Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell as president in a speech citing the military industrial complex and the damage it could do.


    This did not lead to a continued series of journalistic exposes from major news outlets.

    Instead, they turned their heads, averted their eyes and largely acted as though Eisenhower had beeen speaking of the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR.

    Equally true, Colin never ran for president -- which demands a higher level of scrutiny.

    The media's failing yet again as they play talking heads about whether or not Hillary Clinton broke the law with regards to her actions as Secretary of State and The Clinton Foundation.

    She broke her promise -- that's what she broke.

    And, yes, it does matter.

    She agreed to certain things to be Secretary of State.

    Barack Obama did not say, "Now, Hillary, you can't break the law."

    It was assumed that, like every American, she was already expected to obey the law.

    What she promised was to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    Because of the importance of the position, her actions had to rise to that level.

    She agreed to that.

    She failed to honor it and -- looking at her actions -- it's clear she never intended to.

    She's unethical.

    She may have broken the law as well -- nothing so far demonstrates she did.

    But she is unethical and that's demonstrated by the shady deals and dealings she engaged in.

    That is also on no one but herself.

    She was expected to meet a certain standard and she did not.

    Begla and Carville and all the other whores can lie about the great work The Clinton Foundation does (it doesn't -- and Chelsea's salary alone as a board member would outrage most Americans -- and, yes, Bob, you're welcome on my explaining/correcting you on the fact that board members draw a salary -- what an idiot Bob Somerby is.)

    That's not the issue.

    Even illegality is not the issue.

    She signed a document promising to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    She knew what was expected of her and she agreed to it and then she refused to honor it.

    That's unethical.


    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"