Thursday, October 25, 2012

THIS JUST IN! THE PARENTING OF ROBERT GIBBS!

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

 YESTERDAY CAME NEWS THAT BARRY O'S ORIGINAL PLUS-SIZE MODEL ROBERT GIBBS HAD DECIDED TO OFFER PARENTING TIPS. 

ON BARRY O'S ASSASSINATION OF 16-YEAR-OLD AMERICAN CITIZEN ABDULRAHMAN AL-AWLAKI, GIBBS OFFERED, "I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE FATHER IF THEY ARE TRULY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WELL BEING OF THEIR CHILDREN."

THIS MORNING, WITH THESE REPORTERS, GIBBS EXPLAINED HE HAD 'BIRTHED' 42 "BUTT CHILDREN AND I BREAST FED EVERYONE.  IN FACT, I AM STILL BREAST FEEDING ONE BECAUSE HE'S YET TO TURN 19."

THOUGH HE'S 'BUTT BIRTHED' 42 CHILDREN, ONLY 17 ARE LIVING.  GIBBS EXPLAINED THAT HE SAW TERRORIST TENDENCIES IN SOME "SO I KILLED THEM" WHILE AT LEAST 5 OTHERS TOOK THEIR OWN LIVES WHEN THEY SAW THEIR REFLECTIONS IN A MIRROR.

"I THINK YOU SHOULD KILL ANY CHILD WHO MIGHT BE A TERRORIST," GIBBS EXPLAINS.  "I HAD THIS 1 CHILD IN DAY CARE AND SHE DID NOT WANT TO SHARE CRAYONS.  SO I BROKE HER NECK.  PERSONALLY.  DID IT MYSELF.  JUST WALKED UP BEHIND HER AND SNAPPED IT.  LIKE A TWIG.  THAT'S GOOD PARENTING.  I FEEL LIKE ANN-MARGARET IN WHO WILL LOVE MY CHILDREN, YOU KNOW?"

"EXCEPT," GIBBS SAID SLAPPING HIS OWN ASS, "ANN-MARGARET DOESN'T HAVE ALL THIS!  THAT'S RIGHT, BABY GOT BACK!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Reporting for the Pentagon's American Forces Press Service, Jim Garamone notes Lt Gen Mark P. Hertling expressed doubt on Tuesday as to what Iraq might become -- democracy or something else, "They are still struggling and it pains me to watch it."  He also stated, "There was a lot of blood and sweat and tears and hard work put into that country by American soldiers."  Joel Gehrke (Washington Examiner) ties "the general's misgivings about the insurgency and Iraqi security forces" to comments made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the debate Monday as well as to those of Senator John McCain who has stated, "Iraq is going to hell in a hand-basket.  Al Qaida has doubled there presence there.  There are al Qaida training camps in Western Iraq. . . . I've got to hand it to the president to [be able] to say things [in the debate] that in my view defy reality."
 
Let's stay with the debate for a moment.  The increasingly dishonest Stephen M. Walt is aghast at Foreign Policy over the 'neocons' advising Mitt Romney.   Here's an example of the dishonesty:
 
 
To be fair, an awful lot of supposedly sensible Democrats supported the war too, including a lot of senior officials in the Obama administration. But they didn't dream up the war or work overtime to sell it from 1998 onward. They just went along with the idea because they thought it was politically expedient, they couldn't imagine how it might go south, or they were convinced that Saddam was a Very Bad Man and that it was our duty to "liberate" the Iraqi people from him. They were right about Saddam's character, of course, but occupying the entire country turned out to be a pretty stupid way of dealing with him.
 
 
You have to be a huge liar to say "to be fair" and then proceed not to be fair.  Barack's had necons throughout his administration.  We regularly call out Victoria Nuland who is better known as Mrs. Robert Kagan and who is even better known as Dick Cheney's National Security Adivsor (2003 to 2005).   In February 2011, whistle blower Sibel Edmonds (Boiling Frogs) noted some of the many neocons serving in Barack's administration: Marc Grossman, Dennis Ross and Frederick Kagan (that would be Victoria Nuland's brother-in-law).  In 2010,  Kristine Frazao (Russia Today -- link is video and text) thought Kagan's addition was so important, she did a report on just that, opening with, "They're ba-a-a-ck!  The US government may be done with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld but another neoconservative is returning to the government payroll.  That same year, Allen McDuffee (ThinkTanked) observed, "Because we overinflated the impact of neoconservatives during the Bush administration and paid little attention to them before that, we're missing the fact that neocons are having the same influence in the Obama administration they've always had, according to a report issued by the Brookings Institution." And if we drop back another year, we can land on Jacob Heilbrunn's Huffington Post report from May of 2009 which opened:
 
This morning leading neoconservatives such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan held a meeting at the Mayflower Hotel -- in support of President Obama's Afghanistan policy. Kristol and Kagan, as Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen has reported, have formed a successor organization to the Project for the New American Century, which came into disrepute for its advocacy of the Iraq War. The new one is called the Foreign Policy Initiative. Its contention is that America remains, in the words of Madeleine Albright, the "indispensable nation"and, furthermore, that neocons can play a valuable role in coming years in ensuring that it remains one.
 
 
So Walt's sudden concern about the neocons return to power is rather disingenuous.  Return to power?  When Barack brought them into his administration?  His insincerity and lack of scruples go a long way towards explaining why many of the people who applauded him just five years ago wouldn't cross the street to greet him today. 
 
 
On Monday night, we heard President Obama and Governor Romney each profess their love of militarism.
The president boasted, "We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined; China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name it." Then his opponent called for increasing the military budget even more! It was the president who called the United States the "one indispensible nation," but both candidates showed their love of U.S. exceptionalism and exhibited paternalistic worldviews.
That is not the way I see our relationship with our sisters and brothers across the globe.
 
 
Mark Johnson is posting from Basra, he's back in Iraq.  Barack's taken a distortion (lie) he made in the debate and turned it into a new ad which Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) gives  three Pinocchios.  Among other things, the ad proclaims, "Mitt Romney would have left thirty thousand troops there [Iraq]."  Kessler reviews how the Status Of Force Agreement (negotiated under the Bush administration) was coming to an end and the Barack administration attempted to negotiate another agreement.  The deal faltered on the issue of immunity.  But even after it was seen as faltering, negotiations continued (and still continue -- but we will get to that).

This was established by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee November 15, 2011 (for reporting on that hearing,  see  "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot,"  "Iraq snapshot."  Ava reported on it with "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava),"  Wally reported on it with "The costs (Wally)" and Kat reported on it with "Who wanted what?").  By November 15th, the press had been telling you for weeks that negotiations were over.  But that's not what Senator Joe Lieberman and Panetta were saying at the hearing.  Excerpt.

Senator Joe Lieberman:  Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st.  So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are.  Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations.  We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there.  But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together?


As Kessler points out, the administration attempted to negotiate a variation of a SOFA and failed.  Failed.  But the administration wants to spin.  Kessler:


In other words, Obama has spun a diplomatic failure -- an inability to reach a deal with Iraq -- into a "mission accomplished" talking point. In fact, Obama made a dubious claim in the debate that having any troops in Iraq "would not help us in the Middle East."
Since the departure of U.S. troops, the United States has lost leverage in Iraq. For instance, Iran uses Iraqi airspace and convoys on the ground to ferry arms and military equipment to the beleaguered regime in Syria -- a government that Obama says must fall.


And, of course,  Tim Arango (New York Times) reported September 26th:

 
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
Posted by at