Friday, July 11, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HE WANTS TO GO HOLLYWOOD!

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O FINALLY GOT SOME GOOD NEWS -- AN EMMY NOMINATION.

AMERICA'S AGING STARLET TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I'M GOING TO PARLAY THIS INTO A GUEST SPOT ON NCIS!  I'LL BE PLAYING A REALLY BIG ROLE -- LIKE MAYBE A FLAME FROM THE PAST FOR JETHRO."





US House Rep Krysten Sinema:  Thank you, Mr. Miller and Mr. Michaud for allowing me to participate in today's hearing.  And special thanks to my colleague from Arizona Ms. [US House Rep Ann] Kirkpatrick who represents our state's veterans so well on this Committee.  I want to thank all of today's panelists for joining us.  In particular, thank you to Daniel's parents Howard and Jean for being here.  We've worked together quite closely since learning of Daniel's suicide.  And it is an honor and a privilege to be with you here today.  Unfortunately, Daniel's story and the story of the other young man who committed suicide is just all too familiar in our country.  And 22 veterans a day are still committing suicide even after we have heard the tragedies of the young men who lost their lives here and their brothers all across the country.  And, as we heard from Mr.[US House Rep Tim] Walz, Congress has addressed this issue before, has passed legislation before, has said they were going to fix it before and yet the problem has not only not gotten better, it's gotten worse.  I have heard a lot of testimony today about ideas to actually reform the system and make it better.  The Hippa  issue is one I think the Committee would agree needs to be addressed.  I am particularly interested in the pilot program that Sgt [Josh] Renschler participated in.  And my question, to Dr. and Jean Somers, would be about Daniel.  Daniel's experience at the Phoenix VA -- like many, many veterans' experience at the Phoenix VA -- was one of lack of concern, lack of care, lack of follow through and a discombobulated system that didn't allow veterans to receive the care they needed.  In particular, one of the struggles Daniel faced was as an individual who had served in classified service.  He was unable to participate in group therapy because he was not able to share the experiences he experienced while in service.  And yet, at the Phoenix VA, he was unceremoniously put in group therapy and when [he] requested private therapy was not able to get that care.  And of course as we know he took his own life as a result of being unable to get that care.  One medical home model, I believe, in the private  community, has provided an opportunity to create patient-centered care and allow civilians to get the care they need in one home easily that's centered directly on their needs.  While the pilot program in Washington was ended because of -- Well I don't understand why.  They say they really didn't have enough money for it which I think is outrageous -- horrible, horrible reason to stop providing care that we knew was effective.  My question for Dr. and Jean Somers is do you believe a medical home model would work or could be helpful to veterans like Daniel?  We know that many of our post-9/11 veterans face co-occurring disorders --  PTS, TBI, anxiety, depression, physical maladies.  Would a medical home model have been a model that may have worked better for Daniel than what he faced?  

Jean Somers: Absolutely.  As Daniel's irritable bowel syndrome worsened, he didn't feel he could physically leave the house.  I can't imagine that embarrassment.  [Long pause.]  And then, as Howard mentioned, at the time, Phoenix had the speed traps set up on the major highway to get from his home to the Phoenix VA.  So he had to actually find a way to get off the highway so that the flashing lights would not effect him.  So absolutely, I can see that it would have been very helpful to him just to have the privacy capability. 

Dr. Howard Somers:  I-I completely agree.  I think that not only the medical home model but what we talked about -- the ability within the facility for the different people because of his IBS and his TBI and his PTSD.  You're being treated, as we learned here, the term is in "silos."  And what you have to do is get out of the silos and you have to combine resources, combine knowledge.  And we have heard of programs such as was mentioned that are very successful and  that people can have problems and, for whatever reasons, you have an optometrist or an ophthalmologist in there and they say, 'Well, it sounds like it's not this but this.'  And it's something you might not have thought of.  So the medical home model, the ability to create these panels of care, I think anything like that would be overwhelmingly positive.  

US House Rep Krysten Sinema:  Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, while Mr. [US House Rep Dan] Benishek has already left, I do want to take a moment to thank him for co-sponsoring legislation [H.R. 3387: Classified Veterans Access to Care Act] that we drafter with the Somers to address the issue specifically of service members who have served in classified settings and who need appropriate care when they return to the VA.  And I want to thank the Committee and the Subcomittee for supporting just a part of the solution to this issue.

That was from today's House Veterans Affairs Committee.  US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Committee Chair and US House Rep Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member.  The Phoenix VA is, of course, only one part of the national scandal in the VA's failure to provide timely and needed to care to veterans who have been left to suffer.

Chair Jeff Miller:  Following a Committee investigation which uncovered widespread data manipulation and accompanying patient harm at the Dept of Veterans Affairs' medical facilities all across this nation, this Committee has held a series of full Committee oversight hearings  over the last several weeks to evaluate the systemic access and integrity failures that have consumed the VA health care system.  Perhaps none of these hearings have presented the all too human face of VA's failures so much as today's hearing will in fact do.


Jean and Dr. Howard Somer are the parents of the late Daniel Somers, an Iraq War veteran who took his own life following his facing multiple obstacles while he attempted to receive care.  His parents, in their opening statement, cataloged some of these obstacles:

A1.    At the start, Daniel was turned away from the VA due to his National Guard Inactive Ready Reserve status.
A2.    Upon initially accessing the VA system, he was, essentially, denied therapy. 
A3.    He had innumerable problems with VA staff being uncaring, insensitive and adversarial.  Literally no one at the facility advocated for him. 
A4.    Administrators frequently cited HIPAA as the reason for not involving family members and for not being able to use modern technology.
B1.    The VA’s appointment system known as VISTA is at best inadequate. It impedes access and lacks basic documentation.
B2.    The VA information technology infrastructure is antiquated and prevents related agencies from sharing critical information.  There is a desperate need for compatibility between computer systems within the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the DOD. 
B3.    Continuity of care was not a priority.  There was no succession planning, no procedures in place for “warm handoffs”; no contracts in place for locum tenems; and a fierce refusal to outsource anyone or anything.
B4.    At the time Daniel was at the Phoenix VA, there was no pain management clinic to help him with his chronic and acute fibromyalgia pain.
B5.    There were few coordinated inter-Agency goals, policies and procedures.  The fact that the formularies of the DOD and VA are separate and different makes no sense since many DOD patients who are stabilized on a particular medication regimen must re-justify their needs when they transfer to the VA.

B6.    There were inadequate facilities and an inefficient charting process.


His parents were on the first panel along with the parents of Clay Hunt -- Susan and Richard Selke -- and the mother of Brian Portwine -- Peggy Portwine -- and retired Sgt Josh Renschler. 

Clay Hunt was an Iraq War veteran and an Afghanistan War veteran, a member of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.  He took his own life following a move to Houston where he was unable to get the prescription for his Post-Traumatic Stress and was told he'd have to wait two months to see a psychiatrist.  Committee Chair Jeff Miller's suicide bill is named in the memory of Clay Hunt.

Brian Portwine was an Iraq War veteran.  His mother Peggy Portwine explained that Brian's first deployment to Iraq found his unit patrolling Haifa Street in Baghdad and that 8 of his fellow service members would die during this deployment.  He survived a 2006 RPG attack.

Peggy Portwine: Brian suffered a blast concussion and had lacerations to his face and legs from shrapnel. This was Brian’s first episode of Traumatic Brain Injury. During another mission Brian and his 1st Sgt were on patrol in a Humvee and had switched seats so Brian was now in the passenger seat. Twenty minutes later an IED hit the Humvee and his 1st Sgt was killed and Brian was thrown from the Humvee and injured his back. Besides these two  incidents Brian was involved in five other IEDs during his 15 month deployment.  After coming home after his 1st deployment Brian had trouble with short term memory. When his friends were going somewhere he would often say "Where are we going again?  You know I have scrambled brains." To help cope with this he would post everything he had to do on his calendar or computer. In 2010 Brian was recalled to the Army and deploying from Fort Shelby, Miss. During this deployment Brian did not email or call home or to his friends. Little did we know how he was struggling with PTSD and TBI. He had panic attacks being on the same roads he had traveled on the 1st tour where IEDs went off often. He had nightmares 3 x a week and would wake up his unit and someone would have to wake him up. He suffered with anxiety, depression, insomnia, poor concentration, and hypervigilance. But he was never sent home.


Peggy Portwine noted Rose Kennedy [mother of President John F. Kenney, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy -- among others] once stated that "time heals all wounds."  Peggy Portwine declared, "I disagree.  The wounds remain.  In time, the mind -- to protect its sanity -- covers them with scar tissue and the pain lessens.  But it is never gone."

She would like to see S. 2182: Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act (introduced by Senator John Walsh) passed.

Sgt Josh Renschler is an Iraq War veteran.  He served in the military for almost six years. He was medically retired from injuries he sustained in Iraq   He did not receive treatment, he received drugs from the VA to mask the pain, not to help make him healthier.  His doses of Percocet were repeatedly increased until his tolerance for the drug was so strong that they had to switch him to methadone. He was placed on a cocktail of over 13 drugs ingested daily.  Among his many pains, there were pains resulting from nerve damage -- something his VA physical therapist (or 'therapist') had not considered or raised but would be discovered in an MRI.  Renschler has suffered a liver scare and remains in intense pain.  Acupuncture was thought to be a possibly viable treatment for relief from some of the pain, however, it would require him to travel one hour to treatment and one hour back which would defeat any relief he might experience as a result of the treatment.


On the topic of alternative treatments, let's note this exchange from the hearing.

US House Rep David Jolly:  You've raised concern about personalized care and it would seem to me that's clearly lacking.  I don't know what your impressions would be -- if you could speak to that.  And also, simply whether or not alternative therapies have ever -- your sons had that discussed perhaps, or Sgt, in your counseling, the ability to get alternative therapy?  And I say that based on a personal experience as well.  At VA Intake Day, I had a man in my office who said, "Equine therapy works." Well that was good enough for me. But it wasn't good enough for the VA.  So can you speak to any discussions about alternative therapies?  Availability of?  Your opinions to that?  


Sgt Josh Renschler:  Yes, sir.  So again, within the VA medical center, they-they had at one time available to poly-trauma, those who suffered from comorbid conditions, we were able to access recreational therapy and I was put on a six month waiting list.  And when the six months came up, they lost the recreational therapist. That was my only experience there.  Never had a chance to engage in that because I was downgraded from poly-trauma care when the VA determined that my Traumatic Brain Injury had reached a plateau of recovery and it probably would not get better.  That's a completely separate hearing day but as far as the efficacy of alternative therapies, we could -- Again, it really helps and the VA --

US House Rep David Jolly:  The availability? 

Sgt Josh Renschler:  The availability is not there through VA channels.  It's private community is where you have to go. 


US House Rep David Jolly: Doctor and Ms. Somers, do you?

Jean Somers: Yeah, yeah.  I would agree with that.  Daniel himself was a musician so it was easy for him.  He got a piano and a guitar and that was his therapy.  But I would totally agree with that.  At the San Diego VA, I know that they have pottery classes which we were thrilled to hear about and a guitar program.

Dr. Howard Somers: And-and when you talk about evidence-based, it's certainly not just medications.  I mean there are in the psychological treatments that are out there but they are only using two of them when  there are so many potentials out there.  And the other thing that we had mentioned was the MDMA Ecstacy and LSD for pain -- the MDMA for PTSD and the LSD for pain.  Because of our national phobias against these particular chemicals, we're making it very difficult to do trials with these, uh, potential-potential benefits. 



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at

Thursday, July 10, 2014

THIS JUST IN! WHO DISAPPOINTED WHO?

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


TO TEST THE VALIDITY OF THAT PREMISE, THESE REPORTERS SURVEYED THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE.

ABC NEWS EXPLAINED, "HE JUST ISN'T TRENDY, YOU KNOW?"

THE CW SPOKE MORE BLUNTLY, "HE'S ABOUT AS RELEVANT TODAY AS EVAN MARRIOTT.  HE'S PARIS HILTON  TRYING TO LIVE IN A KARDASHIAN WORLD AND THAT JUST AIN'T GONNA' HAPPEN."

NBC NEWS EXPLAINED, "PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO WATCH HIM ANYMORE -- HE'S LIKE SEASON FOUR OF HEROES.  WE'RE LOOKING AT HIS RATINGS AND WONDERING, 'WHERE DID THE VIEWERS GO?"


FOX NEWS TOLD US, "IT'S SO BAD, EVEN WE ARE STARTING TO FEEL SORRY FOR HIM."

PBS STATED, "WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN A JUST A MOMENT AFTER WE COME BACK FROM OUR PLEDGE DRIVE.  WOULD YOU LIKE A SUZE ORMAN TALKING ALARM CLOCK FOR A $400 PLEDGE OR POSSIBLY A BERT AND ERNIE PLASTIC CUP FOR A $300 PLEDGE?"

NOTING THAT THEIR VIEWERS TREND OLD, CBS NEWS EXPLAINED, "THEY SEE IN BARRY O THE SON WITH PROMISE WHO TURNED INTO THE EMBARRASSMENT YOU NEVER SPEAK OF."


WHEN THESE RESULTS WERE RELAYED BACK TO BARRY O FOR A COMMENT, HE REPLIED, "YES, BUT WHAT DID UPN SAY?"

THESE REPORTERS DID NOT HAVE THE HEART TO EXPLAIN TO THE FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF THAT UPN WAS NO MORE.





In a [PDF format warning] press release noting that they were now partnering with NBC News and the Wall St. Journal for the 2014 election polling, Annenberg Public Policy Center noted the latest poll found:


71 percent of Americans said that the conflict in Iraq was not worth fighting, and 49 percent said that Washington does not have a responsibility to help the Iraqi government fight off insurgent groups.



49% is a very high number when you consider that they are opposing US President Barack Obama's so-called 'plan' for Iraq.  It's not even been a month since Barack drew vague outlines in a June 19th speech.  Yet 49% are already opposed to it.

And for good reason, it's not a plan and it backs Nouri al-Maliki -- the man whose destroyed Iraq over two terms and wants a third one. 

Josh Rogin (Daily Beast) speaks with Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi:


ISIS is only one small part of a larger Sunni revolt in Iraq that sectarian groups have been preparing for years, according to Iraq’s exiled Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi. And defeating ISIS won’t stop the greater battle.
“We shouldn’t look at this development of ISIS as apart from the uprising of the Arab Sunni provinces over two years,” Hashimi told The Daily Beast in an interview from Turkey, where he has been living since the government of Nouri al-Maliki purged him in 2012 by indicting him on murder charges, then convicting him in abstentia.
“The provinces have done a peaceful Sunni revolt against the oppression, the injustice, the inhuman conditions the Arab Sunnis have been suffering for years,” he said.


The issue of 'advisors' came up in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki:



QUESTION: Okay. And let me just follow up on the advisors on the ground. Their first assessment last week was that the Iraqis may be able to defend Baghdad but are unable to sort of retake territory already conquered by the Islamic State. Has there been any update to the situation? Are they doing anything other than assessment and perhaps talking to --

MS. PSAKI: Well, assessing is certainly a part of --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. PSAKI: -- what their mandate is. But I would refer you to DOD for any updates on their work on the ground.

QUESTION: Okay. But the fact that al-Baghdadi so boldly goes to a mosque that is a well-known mosque in Mosul and within – knowing exactly where he is, his location was well known and so on, is the United States or would the United States be willing to engage militarily to ensure that, like they did back in 2004 and ’05 and ’06 when they targeted Zawahiri, that they would actually target al-Baghdadi?


MS. PSAKI: You’re familiar with the options that we always have and the President always has at his disposal, but as has consistently been the case, our focus is on the political process and encouraging that to move forward. And again, we have 300 advisors on the ground. They’re in the process of assessing, but I would refer you to DOD for any more specifics on their work.


Advisors were raised by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.  Kristina Wong (The Hill) reports:


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Wednesday the Sunni fundamentalist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) poses a threat not just to the government in Baghdad, but to the United States as well.
"This country should not make any mistake on this, nor anyone in Congress — this is a threat to our country," Hagel said while meeting with troops at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia.
"This is a force that is sophisticated. It's dynamic, it's strong, it's organized, it's well-financed, it's competent, [ISIS]. And it is a threat to our allies all over the Middle East. It's a threat to Europe. It's a threat to every stabilized country on Earth, and it's a threat to us," Hagel said.

 


Ramzy Baroud (Antiwar.com) offers this take:

Not only is Obama failing to accept even a level of moral responsibility over the current plight of Iraqis, but he is haggling to achieve some political gains from Iraq’s misery. Hundreds of US troops have been ordered back to Iraq to "assess" the fighting capabilities of the Iraqi army, and a cautious attempt at intervention is building up slowly in Washington. 
Interventionism is once more permeating American foreign policy thinking; this time around, however, it is ‘soft’ intervention, although it is laden with the same kind of language and misleading references. It seems that the American government has learned so very little since the last botched effort, championed by Perle’s neocons at remaking the Middle East to its liking. 


Nouri is the problem in Iraq and he cannot bring the country together.

He is inept and he is corrupt.

If you're not grasping it, right now, while Barack's insisting the country needs a "political solution," Nouri's yet again attacking political rivals.  Rudaw reports:

Hours after Iraq’s embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accused the Kurds of harboring insurgents, the Kurdistan Region decided that Kurdish ministers appointed to the Iraqi cabinet will not be going to Baghdad.
“As a first response to Maliki’s threats, the Kurdish leadership has decided that our ministers will not attend any meetings of the Iraqi cabinet,” said an official from the dominant Kurdistan  Democratic Party (KDP). 
The official said that there is a consensus among all Kurdish political parties, including the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), to boycott Baghdad.

Nouri is begging the US for help and US President Barack Obama has provided him with weapons and now with US troops.  And Nouri says "thank you" by attacking the Kurds?




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Why?"

Posted by at

Wednesday, July 09, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HE BE TRIPPING!

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



REACHED FOR COMMENT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PLUS SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "YOU'D BE SURPRISED WHAT YOU HAD TO DO TO GET THROUGH A DAY IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  LIKE WE SAY IN DC, WHATEVER GETS YOU THROUGH THE WORKDAY." 




Heads up (no, it's not about Iraq, I'm promoting a friend's show).





Academy Award winning Best Actress Halle Berry's new TV show Extant debuts Wednesday night on CBS. 

While eyes turn to Steven Spielberg's latest TV venture,  Iraq is yet again becoming an issue in elections in the US.  The mid-terms will be in November.  Tom Robb (Journal and Topics) exploressome of the US House races out of Illinois.  The results are rather depressing.  US House Rep Tammy Duckworth shares her opinion which doesn't depress because Tammy Duckworth did not run as an antiwar candidate. (Her stance has been well known since she ran for Congress in 2006.  The antiwar candidate in that 2006 Democratic Party primary was Christine Cegelis.)   She's fine with advisors but "I'm against U.S. boots on the ground beyond that."  That's perfectly in keeping with Duckworth's position since she first went for public office.  Jan Schakowsky, however, has always self-presented as against the war on Iraq.  (This, of course, was before Jan condemned Progressive Democrats of America in June 2011.)  From the article:

“The President -- as I did -- opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, and he kept his promise to the American people that he would withdraw our troops from combat. Tragically, the al-Maliki government has been unwilling to work with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to build a unified, effective government to provide peace and stability in their nation. American troops cannot solve that problem,” Schakowsky said. “The United States can play a support role -- working with our allies to pursue diplomatic solutions. However, it is abundantly clear that our efforts should be focused on ending military engagement in Iraq.”


That passes for antiwar today.  One doubts Schakowsky would feel the same about Bully Boy Bush using US troops in "a support role -- working with our allies to pursue diplomatic solutions."  Schakowsky should also be asked to explain who "our allies" in Iraq are because the US isn't working with the Kurds and, thus far, has done little but prop up Nouri al-Maliki who created the current crises.

In a Foreign Policy column The Week has reprinted, Zaid Al-Ali reminds 2010 offered a great deal of promise:

Iraqis were demanding more from their politicians than mere survival. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki established a new political alliance, the State of Law alliance, which campaigned on a platform of re-establishing strong state institutions, reducing corruption, and providing adequate services to the people. The Iraqiya alliance, another large and newly formed coalition, backed a similar platform. The tantalizing prospects of establishing a new political environment and creating a stable state seemed within reach.
It never happened. Rather than consolidating these gains, several factors began working against Iraq's national cohesion as early as 2010. Maliki's government used "de-Baathification" laws, introduced to keep members of Saddam Hussein's regime out of government, to target his opponents — but not his many allies, who also had been senior members of the Baath Party. The 2010 government formation process turned out to be yet another opportunity for politicians of all stripes to grant themselves senior positions which they could use to plunder the state. When tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in February 2011 to protest corruption, they were branded terrorists and were attacked and beaten by security forces and hired thugs. Dozens were killed and thousands arrested and tortured until the protests fizzled. Meanwhile, though terrorist groups were not operating as openly as before, hundreds of civilians continued to be killed every month, particularly in Baghdad, denying Iraqis in many parts of the country even a brief period of normalcy.
At that time, Maliki began referring to himself publicly as Iraq's preeminent military leader. When the 2010 electoral results did not conform to his expectations, he demanded a recount in his "capacity as commander in chief." When he forced senior anti-corruption officials from their positions, he once again inappropriately invoked his military credentials. He called officers on their mobile phones to demand specific actions or that individuals be arrested, circumventing the chain of command. After the new government was formed in November 2010, he refused to appoint ministers of the interior and of defense, preferring to occupy both positions himself. He appointed senior military commanders directly, instead of seeking parliamentary approval as required by the constitution.
There was also much talk about the prime minister's special forces, including the Baghdad Operations Command. Groups of young men were arrested in waves, often in the middle of the night, and would be whisked to secret jails, often never to be seen again. Former Army officers, members of the Awakening, activists who complained too much about corruption, devout Iraqis who prayed a little too often at their local mosques — all were targeted. Many were never charged with crimes or brought before a judge. Under the pretext of trying to stop the regular explosions that blighted Baghdad, these individuals were subjected to severe abuse.

Thug Nouri has harmed Iraq repeatedly.  He is a lousy leader whose word means nothing.  Whether he's promising his rivals a power-sharing government or telling the press, in 2011, that he wouldn't seek a third term, his word means nothing. 

Ali Mamouri (Al-Monitor) reports today on Nouri's most recent broken promise and how it led to the failure of last week's session of Parliament:

The main reason for the lack of agreement is Maliki’s insistence on retaining his post for a third term. On July 3, the former parliament speaker and the former president of the United for Reform coalition Osama al-Nujaifi announced that he was withdrawing his candidacy for parliament speaker to facilitate the task of forming the government. Maliki had conditioned waiving his candidacy for the premiership on Nujaifi waiving his candidacy for parliament speaker. But after Nujaifi agreed to the condition, Maliki reneged, and that blocked a solution to the crisis.
Regarding the first session of parliament, Sistani’s official representative said that it was “an unfortunate failure. And we hope that the political blocs will intensify dialogue to get out of the current crisis at the earliest possible opportunity.”
But after the session was adjourned for the second time, and for a month, despite the challenges facing the country, Sistani had to take a stand against Maliki. A source close to Sistani’s office told Al-Monitor that “what was attributed recently to Sistani about the fact that there were no red lines on any candidate for prime minister, is unfounded.” This means that Sistani has drawn red lines on some of the candidates.

The loss of Sistani, if true, is a body blow to Nouri's political career.

Nouri's corrupt and dishonest.  On top of that, he's a thug who tortures Iraqis, throws them in secret prisons and much more.  Nouri fled Iraq decades ago after his efforts against Saddam Hussein failed.  He spent his decades in exile railing against Saddam Hussein but the reality is that Nouri wasn't against what Hussein did.  No, Nouri was fine with it, he just wanted his sect to be the one doing the torturing and other crimes.

Nouri's focus in his exile years was on Saddam Hussein being 'evil.'  But not on 'evil' actions, just on a natural 'evil' that Hussein possessed.  When Nouri was hanging with terrorists in Iran, he gave several speeches which 'explained' Saddam Hussein was evil because he was (a) Sunni and (b) secular.

Nouri's objections to Saddam Hussein's actions were not the actions themselves.  No, Nouri only objected to the target of the actions (Shi'ites).  Granted, in the three speeches I've seen copies of, Nouri  was speaking to Shi'ite radicals who were fueled on hatred of all things Sunni so one could argue Nouri had merely tailored his remarks to fit and win over the crowd.

It's also true that if he were faking his remarks back then, he could have, as he repeated them over and over, taken on those prejudices and hatreds. That would certainly explain his use of the term "terrorist" as a generic for any and all Sunnis -- from vice presidents to peaceful protesters.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
Posted by at

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

THIS JUST IN! THE TALK OF THE PLAYGROUND!

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

POOR FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O.

ALREADY HAILED BY AMERICANS AS THE WORST PRESIDENT SINCE WWII, HE NOW FACES STINGING REBUKES -- LIKE BEING CALLED THE 'CAN'T DO' PRESIDENT.

THESE REPORTERS SPENT THE MORNING SURVEYING CHILDREN AT LOCAL PARKS.

5% HAD NEVER HEARD OF BARACK OBAMA.

ANOTHER 7% CONFUSED HIM WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN.

THAT LEFT 88%.

OF THOSE, THE VAST MAJORITY RANKED HIM "A NO GOOD DOODY BUTT" AND FELT THAT ALTHOUGH "HE THINKS HE'S HOT SNOT ON A SILVER PLATTER, HE'S REALLY COLD BUGGERS ON A PAPER PLATE."

A WHOPPING 42% VOICED THE BELIEF THAT, DESPITE HAVING HIS OWN PERSONAL PHYSICIAN ON CALL AT ALL HOURS, BARRY O HAD NEVER HAD A COOTIE SHOT.



Don't just love the pig boys?  No, I don't either.

Piggie Walter Hecht (Spectrum) wants you to know the problem in Iraq is Bully Boy Bush.  He has no knowledge to share of the years 2010 to 2014 -- Nouri's second term.  But he wants you to believe he knows what he's talking about.  He refers to "the Pottery Barn rule" which makes him look like a bigger dunce since Pottery Barn never has had a you-break-it-you-bought-it policy.  Before he was US Senator Al Franken, Al had done the research and established there was no you-break-it-you-bought-it policy at Pottery Barn.

Equally true, Hecht, Iraq isn't up for sale to foreigners.  The gall, the audacity to suggest that foreigners can and should "buy" Iraq?  I'm sorry, you modern day Columbuses, you didn't discover a brave, new land.  Like the Americas, Iraq was occupied.  In fact, Iraq is usually considered to be the birth place of civilization.

Pig boy Hecht wants you to know he understands Iraq.

He understands because he read a book by bwana L. Paul Bremer and a book by former US State Dept employee Peter Van Buren.

Pig boys never read, for example, Deborah Amos' Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile and Upheaval in the Middle East.

What is about these pig boys -- and toss in the ridiculous Thomas E. Ricks  -- that they don't think they need to read women?

Deborah Amos is a journalist.  She wasn't working for the government.  She was in Iraq to report.

I'm failing to understand how Bremer's book -- which I found very self-serving (more was to be learned from the public testimony in England's Iraq Inquiry than from Bremer's book).  Peter Van Buren wrote an interesting book worthy of praise but he's not really someone who mingled with the Iraqis, is he?

While the boys built monuments to their own egos (excessive praise and colossal wailing are two sides of the same grand ego), Deborah told the story of how the Iraq War effected Iraqis.

Her book topped the community's list for 2010 in books with Martha and Shirley observing, "Amos' book is moving throughout but especially when she's charting what refugee status means for a number of Iraqi women -- late nights in clubs attempting to turn a trick in order to support their families.  Amos is covering the realities of the Iraq War that so few have."

Deborah wrote a great book.  She's not the only woman who's done that with the topic of Iraq. At Third, we did a series on the 10 most important books of the last ten years and "Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad" was one of our selections:

One of the few books addressing the effects of the war on the ground -- as opposed to War Porn glorifying the US military 'kills' -- is Manal M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad: A Story of Identity -- My Own and What it Means to be a Woman in Chaos which charts her journey to Iraq, as an American (and an Arab), to help the women of Iraq and what she ends up learning from and of Iraqi women. Omar was with the US Institute of Peace and in Baghdad from 2003 to 2005.

Unlike Thomas E. Ricks or George Packer, we weren't afraid to note women in our list:  "Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking," "Peter Laufer's Mission Rejected," "Chris Hedges'Death of the Liberal Class," "Shirley MacLaine's I'm Over All That," "CCR's Articles of Impeachment Against Bush," "Manal  M. Omar's Barefoot in Baghdad," "Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream," "Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price's Courting Justice," "Anthony Arnove's Iraq: The Logic Of Withdrawal" and "Tori's Piece by Piece."  Laufer and Arnove made the list with Iraq as a topic and I'd also argue that Susan Faludi's penetrating book The Terror Dream has a lot to do with Iraq (and Afghanistan).



It takes a special ignorance blended with arrogance to believe books by people like Bremer -- where Iraqis are, at best, minor supporting character and, at worst, extras -- are going to provide you knowledge of Iraq and its people.  And you can see it in this sentence Hecht typed, "Iraq was not and is not ready for democracy and free market capitalism; Iraq may never be ready."

Who are you to say whether or not Iraq is "ready for democracy"?  That's really up to Iraqis.  As for "free market capitalism," they can be "ready" or not but that will be there decision.  And "free market capitalism" is not the end all be all to solve every problem.  They may choose another economic model, they may revert more strongly to the model they had prior to 2003.  That's their decision.  And when it's treated as though these two things are 'baby steps' to be taken by Iraq, you really insult and infantalize a people and a culture that outdates your own so you might want to pull your nose out of the air.

As for what's happening in Iraq now, Eli Lake (Daily Beast) reports voices were warning the administration -- for years and years:

At the time, senior Obama administration officials went out of their way to proclaim just how impossible-to-predict the collapse of Mosul was. But interviews with a dozen U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials, diplomats, and policy makers reveal a very different story. A catastrophe like the fall of Mosul wasn’t just predictable, these officials say. They repeatedly warned the Obama administration that something like this was going to happen. With seemingly no good choices to make in Iraq, the White House wasn’t able to listen.
“It’s simply not true that nobody saw a disaster like the fall of Mosul coming,” Ali Khedery, who served as a senior adviser at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, told The Daily Beast. “I can’t speak for anyone else, but I literally predicted this in verbal warnings and in writing in 2010 that Iraq would fall apart.”


Ali Khedery had a very important column last week.  Mike noted it in "Reading assignment for Joel Wing and other nut jobs," Rebecca noted it in "and f**k you, tom hayden," Kat in "Joe Biden, another politician of broken promises," Marcia in "Barack's betrayal of Iraq," Ann with "Barack backed Nouri, remember that" and Trina in "The idiot Chris Hill."

The column is  "Why we stuck with Maliki -- and lost Iraq" (Washington Post) and at Third we noted it in "Truest statement of the week" and "Truest statement of the week II."


In a meeting in Baghdad with a Petraeus-hosted delegation of Council on Foreign Relations members shortly after the 2010 elections, Maliki insisted that the vote had been rigged by the United States, Britain, the United Nations and Saudi Arabia. As we shuffled out of the prime minister’s suite, one stunned executive, the father of an American Marine, turned to me and asked, “American troops are dying to keep that son of a b---- in power?”
[. . .]
On Sept. 1, 2010, Vice President Biden was in Baghdad for the change-of-command ceremony that would see the departure of Gen. Ray Odierno and the arrival of Gen. Lloyd Austin as commander of U.S. forces. That night, at a dinner at the ambassador’s residence that included Biden, his staff, the generals and senior embassy officials, I made a brief but impassioned argument against Maliki and for the need to respect the constitutional process. But the vice president said Maliki was the only option. Indeed, the following month he would tell top U.S. officials, “I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA,” referring to the status-of-forces agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq past 2011.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



Posted by at

Friday, July 04, 2014

THIS JUST IN! CULT OF ST. BARACK IS OFFENDED YET AGAIN!

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


CAN WE TALK?

JOAN RIVERS JOKED FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O WAS GAY AND FIRST LADY SHE-HULK WAS TRANSGENDER.

'OH THE HORROR!' CRIED THE CULT -- AS SOFT AND SOFT BRAINED AS THEIR FALSE GOD.

THE HORROR?

THIS IS JOAN RIVERS.

JOAN RIVERS WHO ONCE DID A BIT MOCKING ELIZABETH TAYLOR CHOCKING ON A CHICKEN BONE -- SOMETHING THAT HAD HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE.

SO JUST GROW THE F**K UP, YOU BIG BABIES.

THEY'RE JUST JOKES.

THE CULT OF ST. BARACK REALLY NEEDS TO BE PUT ON PROZAC AND THEY ALSO NEED TO GET AN EDUCATION THAT GOES BEYOND READING YOUNG ADULT FICTION.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Today at the Pentagon, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel addresses the issue of Iraq.

 Secretary Chuck Hagel:  And I'd like to focus a couple of comments on Iraq as I -- as I start.
Our efforts here at DOD have been focused on two specific missions. And I want to lay a bit of a framework down and a base down on what those missions are and then I know you'll have questions.
But in a very clear, deliberate way, first securing our embassy, facilities and our personnel in Iraq.
Second, assessing the situation in Iraq and advising the Iraqi security forces.
Both of these missions are important components of the president's overall strategy in Iraq, helping Iraq's leaders resolve the political crisis that has enabled ISIL's advance and supporting Iraqi forces.
By reinforcing security at the U.S. embassy, its support facilities in Baghdad International Airport, we're helping provide our diplomats time and space to work with Sunni, Kurd, Shia political leaders as they attempt to form a new inclusive national unity government.
By better understanding the conditions on the ground and the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, we'll be better able to help advise them as they combat ISIL forces inside their own country.
Approximately 200 military advisers are now on the ground. We have established a joint operations center with Iraqis in Baghdad and we have personnel on the ground in Erbil where our second joint operations center has achieved initial operating capability.
Assessment teams are also evaluating the capabilities and cohesiveness of Iraqi forces. None of these troops are performing combat missions. None will perform combat missions.
President Obama has been very clear that American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again. The situation in Iraq, as you all know, is complex and it's fluid. But there's no exclusively military solution to the threats posed by ISIL. Our approach is deliberate and flexible. It is designed to bolster our diplomatic efforts and support the Iraqi people. We will remain prepared to protect our people and our interests in Iraq.
As most Americans enjoy this holiday weekend, our military around the world, and especially in the Middle East, will stay postured and ready for any contingency in that region.

As we celebrate Independence Day tomorrow, I want to particularly express my gratitude to the men and women and their families who serve our nation at home and abroad, both civilian and in uniform. I thank you all for what you do to keep our country safe every day.


Okay, before we get to the questions, let's again restate the obvious: US President Barack Obama has refused to put forward a concrete list of actions for how the US can 'help' Iraq.  This probably goes a long way to explaining the results in the recent Quinnipiac poll.

CNN reports, "The poll also indicates that most say it's not in the national interest to get involved in the fighting in Iraq and oppose sending U.S. ground troops to help the Iraqi government, which is trying to hault an aggressive drive by radical Sunni militants who have captured city after city in northern and central Iraq as they march towards Baghdad."

If today's Pentagon press briefing was an honest attempt at informing the people, it failed tremendously.

Even General Dempsey could not explain what the White House has planned for Iraq.



 Q: For General Dempsey, to begin with.
Sir, at the beginning, the Pentagon said one of the objectives was to break the momentum of ISIS.
So my question is very specific, not to the assessments. But what is your measure of success in doing that? How do you know that -- how much do you break the momentum? How do you know, mission accomplished this time, that you can say to the president, "We have achieved those objectives"?
And is it enough for the Iraqi forces simply to be able to hold Baghdad? Is the measure of success that? Or is it the Iraqi forces able to go north and regain this massive territory that ISIS has right now?
Are you -- is the United States military prepared, if they have to, to defend Baghdad and defend the airport?
GEN. DEMPSEY: So the questions get more and more complex as we go.

 Q: We haven't seen you in a long time.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Yeah, I know you haven't. Well, you know, it's impossible to wrestle the podium away from John Kirby.
The -- I don't think you've ever heard me say that we would break the momentum.

 Q: Actually, Admiral Kirby said it.
GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, I told you. That's my problem.
The issue is for us -- has been for us to determine the ability of the ISF after having suffered some initial setbacks to be able to stabilize the situation and eventually go back on the offensive to regain their sovereign territory and what will we be willing to contribute to that cause. And that's not a question that we're prepared to answer just yet.
In terms of -- you know, you mentioned the airport and you mentioned our intentions. Remember, the phrase I used was that we are protecting that which would allow us to preserve options. And the airport, not the entire airport, but that part of it that we need for logistics, resupply and potentially for evacuation, we are protecting that part of the airport for that purpose.
It's -- it really is about deliberately first preserving options and then developing options. And if you are asking me, will the Iraqis, at some point, be able to go back on the offensive to recapture the part of -- of Iraq that they've lost, I think that's a really broad campaign-quality question.
Probably not by themselves. It doesn't mean we would have to provide kinetic support. I'm not suggesting that that's the direction this is headed. But in any military campaign, you would want to develop multiple actions to squeeze ISIL. You'd like to squeeze them from the south and west. You'd like to squeeze them from the north and you'd like to squeeze them from Baghdad. And that's a campaign that has to be developed.

But the first step in developing that campaign is to determine whether we have a reliable Iraqi partner that is committed to growing their country into something that all Iraqis will be willing to participate in. If the answer to that is no, then the future is pretty bleak.


So, with hundreds of US troops sent back into Iraq, what is the plan?

The best Dempsey can offer is that there's a "first step" in which the US will "determine whether we have a reliable Iraqi partner that is committed to growing their country into something that all Iraqis will be willing to participate in.  If the answer to that is no, then the future is pretty bleak."

Right now it appears the future is pretty bleak.  It's a shame this couldn't have been determined before hundreds of US troops were sent into Iraq in the last weeks.

The press wasn't just taking dictation in the briefing.


Q: Yes. Again, General Dempsey, what you just described sounds like an open-ended commitment or mission for the U.S. military. A stable Iraq, an inclusive government, the ability to force ISIL into some find of retreat or submission sounds like a long-term effort. What is the end game? When will the president be able to say, "let's bring our boys home"?

GEN. DEMPSEY: Well, first of all, this is not 2003. It's not 2006. This is a very different approach than we've -- than we've taken in the past. I mean, assessing, advising and enabling are very different words than attacking, defeating and disrupting.


Okay, so it was "attacking, defeating and disrupting" and now it's "assessing, advising and enabling."  Who knew that for every trillion dollars a nation wastes on an illegal war, Collins Reference tossed in a Roget's Thesaurus?  Apparently, they tossed in a calendar as well allowing Dempsey to grasp that it was neither 2003 nor 2006.

Dempsey then went on to explain that US troops on the ground may, in fact, despite the claims otherwise, be involved in "direct action."  He stated, "We may get to that point if our national interests drive us there; if ISIL becomes such a threat to the homeland that -- that the president of the United States, with our advice, decides that we have to take direct action. I'm just suggesting to you we're not there yet."

And when reporters hear this and ask about it?  A lot of spinning takes place.
Q: Mr. Secretary, you said the advisers would not be involved in combat. General Dempsey, you have raised the possibility that those advisers could be used as forward air controllers in the event that you called in air strikes, which I think most people would regard as being involved in combat. So, which is it on that?
And second, you mentioned that the Iraqis, to go on the offensive, would most likely to need help in logistics, which sounds like a prescription for sending in more U.S. advisers, troops, opening up supply depots. Is that on the table?

 GEN. DEMPSEY: You know, there's a tendency to think of this as kind of industrial-strength, you know, where we're going to put a mountain of supplies someplace, and then that's going to require us to protect it, and then we've got to move it forward into the hands of the Iraqis to ensure that they use it and use it responsibly and effectively.
And that's -- that's obviously one possibility, but it's not one that personally I think the situation demands. I think the situation demands first and foremost that the Iraqi political system find a way to separate the Sunnis who have partnered now with ISIL, because they have zero confidence in the ability of Iraq's politicians to govern.
If you can separate those groups, then the problem becomes manageable and understandable and allows us to be in a position to enable Iraq, not with a huge industrial-strength effort, but rather with the special skills, leadership and niche capabilities that we possess uniquely. And there's no daylight between what an adviser will do.
We haven't made -- right now as we sit here, the advisers are categorically not involved in combat operations. They're literally assessing. That's their task. If the assessment comes back and reveals that it would be beneficial to this effort and to our national security interests to put the advisers in a different role, I will first consult with the secretary. We will consult with the president. We'll provide that option and we'll move ahead. But that's where we are today.

 Q: (inaudible) -- will not be involved.

 SEC. HAGEL: Well, I think the chairman made it very clear. These are assessment teams and that's their mission. Their mission is limited and it is a clear scope of what their mission is, and it is to assess. It is to come back with their assessment of where they believe we are regarding ISF, ISIL, and all the other dimensions that I -- let me finish -- that I said.
Advisers or what may come as a result of any assessments as to what they would come back to General Dempsey with or General Austin, and eventually me and eventually the president, I don't know where they're going to be. But their mission today is making those assessments. So I think the general was pretty clear.

 Q: But their mission could change.

 SEC. HAGEL: That wasn't your question. 


Actually, it was: "Mr. Secretary, you said the advisers would not be involved in combat. General Dempsey, you have raised the possibility that those advisers could be used as forward air controllers in the event that you called in air strikes, which I think most people would regard as being involved in combat. So, which is it on that?  And second, you mentioned that the Iraqis, to go on the offensive, would most likely to need help in logistics, which sounds like a prescription for sending in more U.S. advisers, troops, opening up supply depots. Is that on the table?"  The entire question was based on the mission changing.

And because Barack has failed to clearly define the US mission, Hagel's left to snap, "That wasn't your question."


Hagel went on to insist, "We have one mission today, and that's assessments. I don't know what the assessments are going to come back and say or what they would recommend. We'll wait to see what that is, what General Austin and General Dempsey then recommend. But, that's the whole point of assessments."

Is that the whole point of assessments?

Thank you for sharing that.  But at what point is a clear mission presented to the American people?

General Dempsey spoke of Iran, "On Iran. Look, anyone who's served in Iraq through the years knows that Iran has been active in Iraq since 2005. So, the -- the thought that they are active in Iraq in 2014 is completely unsurprising. Now, it's probably more overt than it has been up until now. And as you know, they -- they, too, have come over to in some ways advise this call for -- for young Shia men to rise in the defense of their nation that Sistani made.  By the way, when Sistani made that proclamation, he talked about an Iraq for all Iraqis. I hope so. We'll see. That's a question that has yet to be answered. But the Iranians are there, as you know. They're also flying some unmanned aerial vehicles, and they have, as you described, provided some military equipment. I don't know whether it has violated any Security Council resolutions. That will have to be determined.  In terms of whether we intend to coordinate with them or not, we do not intend at this time to coordinate them. It's not impossible that in the future we would be -- we would have reason to do so. In terms of de-conflicting, let's take the airspace. That's sovereign Iraqi airspace. So the de-confliction of our ISR and their ISR and our flights and their flights, that's an Iraqi responsibility which they are capable of fulfilling."





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The always abdicating US Congress"
"Acting Secretary Gibson Meets with Special Counsel..."
"Government Privacy Watchdog Signs Off on Much of N..."
"Reading assignment for Joel Wing and other nut jobs"
"and f**k you, tom hayden"
"The idiot Chris Hill"
"Tammy"
"A movie plea"
"Joe Biden, another politician of broken promises"
"Son of a Bush"
"Barack's betrayal of Iraq"
"A few thoughs on Hillary"
"Barack backed Nouri, remember that"
"As C.I. told you, Barack is prepping for possible combat in Iraq"
"Pig boy Barack"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O'S WAR ON WOMEN! "


    • Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)