Saturday, October 29, 2016

THIS JUST IN! SHE EATS SMALL TODDLERS!

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


THAT CRAZY CRANKY CLINTON IS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE F.B.I. YET AGAIN.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY STOPPED CHEWING OFF THE HEAD OF A SMALL TODDLER LONG ENOUGH TO SNARL, "IT DON'T MEAN S**T! NO ONE CAN STOP ME! DID YOU NOT SEE MY LATEST TWEET?"

THESE REPORTERS DID SEE IT.


“The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining.”



WHEN THESE REPORTERS ASKED WHAT CRANKY HERSELF OWED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, LIKE THE TRANSCRIPTS TO HER WALL STREET SPEECHES, SHE LUNGED AT THESE REPORTERS WITH HER FANGS BARED BUT TRIPPED OVER HER OWN IMMENSE BELLY FAT AND FELL TO THE GROUND.

AT WHICH POINT, THESE REPORTERS HIGHTAILED IT OUT OF THERE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Saif Hameed and Maher Chmaytelli (REUTERS) report, "Iraqi Shi'ite militias said on Friday they would launch an offensive against Islamic State west of Mosul imminently, a move which would block any retreat by the Sunni jihadists into Syria but is likely to alarm Iraq's northern neighbor Turkey."

This may or may not alarm Turkey.

Of greater concern should be the issue of the region which is not going to see these militias as 'helpers' or 'liberators' but as attackers and threats to their well being.


Then there's the US government.

Their bombings are not to be directed by these militias, they are not to support these militias.

These militias are accused of War Crimes.

There's also the concern that Hayder al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, has stated that these militias will not take part.


Is there any consistent in any of this?

Apparently not.


On that topic, Stephen Gowans (GLOBAL RESEARCH) explores the differences between the US government's views and actions in Iraq versus in Syria:

To recover Ramadi from Islamic State, Iraqi forces surrounded and cordoned off the city. [6] In addition, the US led coalition bombarded Ramadi with airstrikes and artillery fire. [7] The bombardment left 70 percent of Ramadi’s buildings in ruins. The city was recovered, but “the great majority of its 400,000 people” were left homeless. [8]
Iraqi forces also besieged the city of Fallujah, preventing most food, medicine and fuel from entering it. [9] Militias “prevented civilians from leaving Islamic State territory while resisting calls to allow humanitarian aid to reach the city.” [10] This was done “to strangle Islamic State” [11] with the result that civilians were also “strangled.” Inside the city, tens of thousands endured famine and sickness due to lack of medicine. [12] Civilians reportedly survived on grass and plants. [13] Many civilians “died under buildings that collapsed under” artillery bombardment and coalition air strikes. [14]

The current campaign to recover Mosul is based on the same siege strategy US forces and their Iraqi client used to liberate Ramadi and Fallujah. US and allied warplanes have been bombarding the city for months. [15] Iraqi forces, aided by US Special Forces, are moving to cordon it off. “Some aid groups estimate that as many as a million people could be displaced by fighting to recapture the city, creating a daunting humanitarian task that the United Nations and other organizations say they are not yet ready to deal with.” [16]
Writer and journalist Jonathan Cook commented on the utter hypocrisy of Westerners who condemn the Syrian/Russian campaign to liberate East Aleppo from Islamist fighters while celebrating the Iraqi/US campaign to do the same in Mosul. Targeting the British newspaper, the Guardian, beloved by progressives, Cook contrasted two reports which appeared in the newspaper to illustrate the Western heart beating for all except those the US Empire drowns in blood.

Report one: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the beginning of a full-throttle assault by Iraqi forces, backed by the US and UK, on Mosul to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS – an assault that will inevitably lead to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population.
Report two: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the US and UK for considering increased sanctions against Syria and Russia. On what grounds? Because Syrian forces, backed by Russia, have been waging a full-throttle assault on Aleppo to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS and Al-Qaeda – an assault that has led to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population. [17]

Central to Western propaganda is the elision of the Islamist character of the Al Qaeda militants who tyrannize East Aleppo. This is accomplished by labeling them “rebels,” while the “rebels” who tyrannize the cities the United States and its allies besiege are called “Islamic State,” ISIL” or “ISIS” fighters. The aim is to conjure the impression that US-led sieges are directed at Islamic terrorists, and therefore are justifiable, despite the humanitarian crises they precipitate, while the Syrian-led campaign in East Aleppo is directed at rebels, presumably moderates, or secular democrats, and therefore is illegitimate. This is part of a broader US propaganda campaign to create two classes of Islamist militants—good Islamists, and bad ones.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Why would you use my dad? -- Erica Garner blasts C..."
"Iraq snapshot"
"WikiLeaks emails blow hole in Obama story on Clint..."
"Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq snapshot"
"The Iraq War continues"
"Iraq"
"Malcolm X's remarks about politics rings true toda..."
"The face Hillary showed to the world was that of a..."
"Thank you"
"Will the press now do their job?"
"The Clinton Foundation finally begins to get a little attention"
"The Clinton Corruption Foundation and so much worse"
"that crooked clinton foundation"
"She is a lousy candidate"
"It's the 90s all over"
"Bill's actions worried Hill's campaign"
"WILL & GRACE"
"The healthcare scam"
"Her birthday"
"Rigged?"
"Michael Moore"
"ObamaCare continues to fade"
"Those polls"
"As New Hampshire goes, so goes the nation?"
"It's a new day"
"what hillary eats"
"Tom Tom gone"
"She will show her ass"
"THIS JUST IN! HER BIG BUTT!"







Monday, October 24, 2016

THIS JUST IN! HER BIG BUTT!

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

LIKE SLICK WILLIE, CRANKY CLINTON CANNOT BE TRUSTED.


Clinton also told me she has 'nothing to say' about Wikileaks email revealing a $12M Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo


THE PROBLEM IS 'HANDLED' BY DISTRACTING.

CRANKY CLINTON INSISTS WIKILEAKS DID SOMETHING WRONG -- THEY DIDN'T -- AND THIS ALLOWS HER TO IGNORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS EXPOSED.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY BRAYED, "JUST BE GLAD I'M NOT PULLING DOWN MY INDUSTRIAL CONTROL TOP PANTYHOSE TO EXPOSE MY BIG OL' BUTT TO YOU!"






Let's stay with the Wednesday debate for a second.

As many Republicans (at least those on TV) flee the GOP for the Democratic Party in order to support conservative War Hawk Hillary Clinton (who stated in the debate she would have voted to ban late term abortions -- a fact no one is discussing except for Rebecca in 'hillary would ban late term abortions'), pundits gasp or cackle this may be the end of the Republican Party.

It may be.

Which would be a reason to vote Green -- unless you're hoping that the GOP's demise means only one party.

As the Democratic Party becomes closer and closer to the Republican Party, a new party is needed.

Just as this could be the year the GOP goes down (I don't think so but it could be), this could be the year a new major party emerges: Green.

Think about all the gas baggery you've seen on so-called 'news' programs on cable about the GOP's demise.

If you're going to gas bag over that topic, then the topic that goes with it is what replaces it.

Only that hasn't prompted gas baggery.

Do we have a media or do we have a Democratic Party megaphone?

This morning Mika is again blathering on about how Donald Trump, in the debate Wednesday night, refused to say if he will accept the results.

This a non-issue.

Let's say Donald understood the question and its meanings and is planning on not accepting the results if he loses.

So what?

The Electoral College will name the winner regardless, that person will be sworn in.

Doesn't really matter what he accepts.

Hillary grandstanded on the issue as always.

But she was wrong, Al Gore did not accept the results.

That's why he filed challenges.

Yes, after the Supreme Court ruling -- one month and five days after the election -- Al Gore did concede to Bully Boy Bush.

But Al did not publicly accept the results until that moment.

'But the results were in dispute!'

Yeah, whine to someone who didn't contribute to Al Gore (I did and to the recount fund) and to someone who doesn't refer to Bully Boy Busy as BBB or "White House occupant" -- check the archives, I have never applied the p-word to BBB.  I will say "President Barack Obama," I do not use the p-wod with BBB.

The results could be disputed again.



RECOMMENDED: "Hillary and the press"