Thursday, February 16, 2017

THIS JUST IN! CHUCKLES SCHUMER KEEPS LAUGHING!

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

I agree 100% we need to look into all deleted emails that have to do with National Security. Let's start with


CHUCKLES SCHUMER IS LAUGHING AT ALL THE TURMOIL.

"I PRETEND TO HATE REPUBLICANS," HE EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS.  "BUT I VOTE WITH THEM ALL THE TIME ON REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF -- LIKE THE IRAQ WAR.  I ALSO HATE PALESTINIANS.  THESE ARE REAL GOOD TIMES FOR ME.  INSTEAD OF BEING CALLED OUT FOR MY REACTIONARY POSITIONS, EVEN A LEFTIST DEMOCRAT RUSHES TO APPLAUD ME."





Truth tellers are rare in the world.

They are even more rare when it comes to truth telling re: Iraq.


Moonnar27 has been a truth teller.  (Here's a Tweet we included here last January by Moonnar27.)



  • فقط انسخو هذا الهشتاق الانكليزي وارفقوا معه صور وفديوات جرائم الجيش الشيعي بالعراق اوصلوا صوتنا للعالم بكل الطرق لاتسكتوا



    Her truths have been brave and important.

    She has been off Twitter for over two weeks now -- her account killed.

    As the silence continues, people are worrying.

    Does anybody know @moonnor27 personally? Her life may be in danger. People have been trying to contact her phone & there's no response...





    Hayder al-Abadi is watered down Nouri al-Maliki.

    It wouldn't be at all surprising if Hayder sought out to silence her.

    Even less surprising if some Shi'ite militia did so.

    Moonnor27 may have just gotten sick of Tweeting.

    I'm sure the awful news she sees wears on her more than any of us could guess.

    But we're opening with this concern because there is good reason to worry and she's someone we have long noted.

    in the absence of @moonnor27 we remain vigilant for 4 all suffering from tyranny by & ignorence of the west


    Apparently once again sister @moonnor27 account appears to have been disabled




    An Iraqi activist goes silent.

    Her Twitter account is (again) killed.

    Where's the global interest if not concern?




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




  • Tuesday, February 14, 2017

    THIS JUST IN! NEW DOLL FROM MATTEL!

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

    NEW FROM MATTEL, THE SPOILED BABY GIVE ME EVERYTHING DOLL.


    SPOILED BABY GIVE ME EVERYTHING DOLL CAN RUN FOR CONGRESS OR TRY OUT FOR THE LEAD IN THE NEXT 50 SHADES FILM.

    SHE CAN DO ANYTHING BECAUSE SHE'S NEVER ACHIEVED ANYTHING.

    MATTEL NOTES THE DOLL COMES WITH A STRONG GRIP AND WILL GRAB ANYTHING PUT IN HER HANDS.




    Michael Knights is steaming mad.  And he takes his crazy to FOREIGN POLICY:


    On Jan. 21, the newly minted commander in chief raised his oft-repeated mantra that the United States might have offset the costs of the Iraq War by somehow seizing Iraqi oil. Six days later, he signed an executive order banning Iraqi nationals from entering the United States for 90 days and Iraqi refugees from entering for 120 days. The banned persons initially included thousands of translators and other Iraqis who risked their lives by serving alongside U.S. troops in Iraq.





    Thousands?

    No.

    As Trudy Rubin (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER) explained last week:

    By now you probably know that Trump's claim that a mere 109 visa-holders were affected was nonsense. At least 60,000 U.S. visas were canceled, causing chaos for foreign students, academics, high-tech workers, doctors who serve rural America, family members of U.S. citizens, and tourists. That's beside green-card holders - permanent U.S. residents - who were originally included in the ban (most were eventually permitted to enter).
    What you may not know is that the ban included Iraqis who held Special Immigrant Visas (SIV) issued to interpreters who helped the U.S. military. Thank heavens the Trump administration was shamed (and pressed by the Pentagon) into revising that decision. However, that affected relatively few Iraqis, since the SIV program ended in 2014; only 19 such visas were issued during the last three years, according to the State Department (around 500 cases are still in process).
    And what you probably don't know is that many other Iraqis who risked their lives helping Americans are still excluded by the ban.


    Around 500 cases are still in process.

    Knights goes with "thousands."  And forgets to note that the program ended in 2014 so these 500 cases should have had already been ruled on by the previous administration.

    But what do facts matter when you're wagging your war-on at the country as it drips pre-death?

    Michael writes:

    The good news is that the United States is not swimming against the tide of Iraqi politics. On the contrary, it has aligned itself with the political and religious mainstream. Most Iraqis don’t want their country to be controlled by outsiders. They want sovereignty, choices, and leverage.
    This is not what Iran offers. Iraqi nationalists — whether they are Shiite moderates like Abadi, U.S.-trained special forces soldiers, Sunni Arabs, or even homegrown Shiite radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr — know that it would be curtains for them as soon as the Iranian-backed factions took over Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Shiite religious leadership in Najaf is looking down the barrel of an Iranian gun. When the country’s preeminent Shiite religious authority, the 86-year-old Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, passes away, there will be a fierce scramble for spiritual leadership of Iraqi Shiites, and Iran will play hardball for this ultimate prize.
    The semiautonomous Iraqi Kurds, America’s oldest allies in Iraq, can also look forward to a new confrontation with the Iraqi government if Tehran’s proxies take over Baghdad. Just as the theocracy in Tehran constantly vents its special hatred for Iran’s Kurds, so too will the IRGC try to place Iraqi Kurds under the hammer of an oppressive state.

    The United States has a much less prescriptive vision that’s far more attractive to Iraqis: Brett McGurk, the U.S. special envoy for the anti-Islamic State coalition, has called for “functioning federalism,” power sharing between ethnosectarian blocs, and a negotiated settlement over the future status of Iraqi Kurdistan between Baghdad and the Kurds. At heart, Washington wants a strong and sovereign Iraq so that the United States can reduce its presence without ceding the country to Iran.



    So Brett's calling for what former Vice President Joe Biden called for when he was a member of the US Senate?

    And has Michael Knights forgotten how badly that went over?

    First, it was that the US was trying to destroy Iraq.

    Then you have people of all sects speak out against federalism.

    Federalism may be a good idea -- it may not be.

    But that's something for the Iraqi people to determine -- not Brett McGurk, not Michael Knights.

    Though some Shi'ites were for it, the loudest argument against it came from Shi'ites who, because they are the majority population, don't see the need to split up Iraq or its resources.


    As for aligning itself with the political and religious mainstream?

    When?

    When did the US do that?

    When the US government installed exiles who fled their country for decades and only returned after the foreign invaders ran Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad?

    Those chickens?

    Time and again, the US has backed tryants because, in the words of disgraced US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill, "Iraq needs a strongman."

    That's why, when the Iraqi people voted Nouri out as prime minister in 2010, Barack Obama nullified the votes (with The Erbil Agreement) and gave Nouri a second term.

    And, Michael Knights, you know damn well how that turned out.

    Currently, the US has installed Hayder al-Abadi as prime minister (don't we love Iraq's right to self-determination -- in theory, even if we never let them practice it).

    He's not moderate.

    He's ineffectual at best.

    No one listens to him.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




  • Thursday, February 09, 2017

    THIS JUST IN! THE WIGS COME OFF

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

    CORRINE BROWN, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, DENIES THE FEDERAL CHARGES AGAINST HER EVEN THOUGH HER FORMER AIDE HAS TURNED ON HER AND PLEADED GUILTY TO THEIR PAY-TO-PLAY SCAM.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, MS. BROWN DENIED THE CHARGES TO THESE REPORTERS.

    OR WE THINK SHE DID.

    "AH-BA-BOO-BAH-SUBA-SAW!"

    THIS IS WHAT MS. BROWN DECLARED WAVING HER HANDS WILDLY WHILE HER WIG BOBBED TOO AND FRO.

    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    ALL IRAQ NEWS carries the story that Moqtada al-Sadr is discussing teaming with Ayaad al-Allawi for a political slate in the upcoming elections.

    Moqtada is one of the most powerful Shi'ite politicians.  His only real challenger to the title is probably Ammar al-Hakim.

    Ayaad al-Alawi is a Shi'ite as well.

    He proved his political strength in the 2010 election when he devised an integrated political slate, Iraqiya, which won the 2010 elections and which would have led to Ayaad being prime minister were it not for then-US President Barack Obama overturning the election results with The Erbil Agreement.
    (For those keeping track, when the US government interfered with that election, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.)

    A teaming of Moqtada and Allawi is not all the strange.

    Nouri al-Maliki sees both as political enemies.  (Nouri was prime minister from 2006 through 2014 and wants to be prime minister again.)

    And the two were part of a coalition attempting to get a no confidence vote against Nouri in 2011.  (Then-US Vice President Joe Biden pressured then-Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to stop the process.)


    If they do form a political slate, it would not be surprising if they attempted to bring in Ammar and others they had worked with in 2011 as well.



    RECOMMENDED: "Isakson, Tester Applaud Committee Approval of Dr. ..."
    "Mapping The War Machine (David Swanson)"
    "A New Social Contract event to be rescheduled"
    "Baldwin, Sullivan Introduce Bipartisan Legislation..."
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Again on LEGION"
    "Janis Joplin"
    "Amanda Marcotte's bile"
    "Where are the jobs?"
    "The truth is beautiful"
    "John Stauber nails it"
    "THE VIEW is lousy"
    "Sessions, Warren and DeVos"
    "a must read"
    "Crooks (DNC)"
    "Mommy to the rescue?"
    "THIS JUST IN! CHELSEA WHINES!"






    Wednesday, February 08, 2017

    THIS JUST IN! CHELSEA WHINES!

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

    NEPOTISM ONLY WORKS WHILE YOUR GO-TO HAS POWER.




    AND YOU WONDER WHY CHELSEA CLINTON IS TRYING TO GET POLITICAL?

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, BABY CHELSEA TOOK THE SUCKER OUT OF HER MOUTH AND EXPLAINED, "WITH THE CLINTON FOUNDATION PROBLEMS, I CAN'T USE IT AS MY PERSONAL ATM.  NOW MY HUSBAND'S BUSINESS HAS COLLAPSED.  IT WAS OBVIOUS FROM MY TIME WITH NBC THAT I HAD NO SKILLS, TALENT OR BRAINS.  IN FACT, TOM BROKAW TOLD MY MOMMY THAT.  SHE SAID, 'GOOD.  WE'LL SEND HER INTO POLITICS.' I'M JUST GLAD TO KNOW I MIGHT BE QUALIFIED FOR SOMETHING.  IS IT NAP TIME YET?"



    The media failure never ends.

    Link to headline article



    What is the purpose of this trash?

    It's supposed to be journalism.

    But it fails at every test.

    Michael Gregory seems unaware that when 'reporting' for REUTERS it is his job to provide context. 

    If it's just a non-stop feed, it's not reporting.

    The so-called Iraqi forces are yet again breaking the law but you'd never know that to read Michael Gregory's so-called report.

    They are leaving the bodies of members of the Islamic State in the streets -- so dogs will eat the corpses, one helpfully explains.


    In the long and useless article, Gregory finds time for this, "But a man who approached said the bodies should be buried because that is everyone's right."

    And that's the closest to context Gregory ever gets.

    It is everyone's right.

    It is also -- a point Gregory fails to inform the readers -- the law.


    Rule 115. Disposal of the Dead
    Rule 115. The dead must be disposed of in a respectful manner and their graves respected and properly maintained.
    Summary
    State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
    International armed conflicts
    The obligation to dispose of the dead respectfully was first codified in the 1929 Geneva Conventions.[1]  It is now dealt with in detail in the 1949 Geneva Conventions.[2] Many military manuals specify that the dead must be disposed of decently.[3]  This obligation is set forth in the legislation of most, if not all, States.[4]  It was upheld in 2002 by Israel’s High Court in the Jenin (Mortal Remains) case.[5] The above-mentioned treaty provisions also require that graves be respected and properly maintained. Additional Protocol I adds that the parties must conclude agreements to protect and maintain gravesites permanently.[6]  The requirement to respect and maintain gravesites is also laid down in numerous military manuals.[7] 
    Non-international armed conflicts
    The obligation to dispose of the dead decently in non-international armed conflicts is set forth in Additional Protocol II.[8]  In addition, this rule is contained in other instruments pertaining also to non-international armed conflicts.[9] A number of military manuals which are applicable in or have been applied in non-international armed conflicts specify that the dead must be disposed of decently.[10]  The legislation of most, if not all, States requires respect for this rule.[11]  It may be said that this rule reflects a general principle of law requiring respect for the dead and their graves.No official contrary practice was found with respect to either international or non-international armed conflicts. A reported case of the disrespectful disposal of dead civilians in Papua New Guinea was condemned by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions.[12] 
    It is also likely that further detailed rules supporting the requirement of decent disposal of the dead and respect and proper maintenance of their gravesites are contained in domestic legislation.
    Interpretation
    The Geneva Conventions specify that the dead must be buried, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged and that they may only be cremated in exceptional circumstances, namely because of imperative reasons of hygiene, on account of the religion of the deceased or in accordance with the express wish of the deceased.[13]  The Geneva Conventions furthermore require that, in principle, burial should be in individual graves. Collective graves may only be used when circumstances do not permit the use of individual graves or, in case of burial of prisoners of war or civilian internees, because unavoidable circumstances require the use of collective graves.[14]  Lastly, the Geneva Conventions require that graves be grouped according to nationality if possible.[15]  These requirements are also set forth in numerous military manuals.[16] It is likely that some of these requirements also apply in non-international armed conflicts on the basis of national law. In 1995, for example, Colombia’s Council of State held that the deceased must be buried individually subject to all the requirements of the law, and not in mass graves.[17] 



    It is a violation of the law.

    In all the rah rah quotes (see the article) about how wonderful leaving bodies in the streets as a lesson is, Gregory never notes the law.

    His job is to provide context.

    The law is context.

    When people complain that they were treated unfairly under the law, they are complaining because laws exist so that we ideally are all treated uniformly.  Mob mentality is not the law.  Vengeance is not the law.

    What is taking place in Mosul right now is not the law.

    It is yet another violation of the law.

    And it shames not only the Iraqi military but the government that has allowed these travesties to take place.

    The government of Iraq was put in place by an occupying power (the United States government).

    It has failed to represent the Iraqi people which is why the Islamic State was able to get a hold in Iraq to begin with.

    Now it fails to follow even the most basic recognized international laws.

    And for Michael Gregory and REUTERS, that's not a story.

    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"