Friday, September 26, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HE HAS AN IMAGE!

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

HE'S A FAILURE AS A WAR PRESIDENT AND, THE ECONOMIST REMINDS, HE'S A FAILURE ON THE ECONOMY.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF, BARRY O INSISTED, "IT'S GOOD TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION AND I HAVE MADE AN IMPRESSION.  I'VE LEFT MY IMPRINT.  ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY. KIND OF LIKE URINE STAINS.  I'M THE OLD CAT TOO BLIND TO GO IN THE URINE BOX THAT YOU PUT UP WITH FOR A YEAR OR SO BECAUSE YOU KNOW HE'LL BE GONE SOON."




If you want to know how poorly the US efforts at diplomacy are, you need look no further than press briefings.

The State Dept's "daily press briefing"?  They haven't done one since September 19th.



Q: Since the -- since the strikes began a few days ago in Syria, have you seen any evidence of Assad forces taking any ground that was previously held by ISIS? And the corollary to that, in Iraq, have -- to what extent has the Peshmerga or the Iraqi forces been able to retake territory because of American airstrikes? If you could just update us on that situation, as well.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I haven't seen any movement by Assad regime forces to move into facilities or infrastructure that we've hit. We've also seen -- not seen a lot of -- to be quite honest, haven't seen much in terms of reaction by ISIL inside Syria as a result of these attacks. In other words, were not seeing a lot of movement or major muscle movement changes by them in just the last couple of days.

In Iraq, the -- I could point to the preservation of Haditha Dam. I could point to their ability to work with Kurds, to retake the Mosul Dam facility. I can point to the town of Amerli, which we prevented with them a humanitarian disaster. We could go on and on and on.

I would also note -- and this gets forgotten a little bit -- that Baghdad is still relatively secure. I mean, there's been a couple of minor IED attacks inside Baghdad, but the ISF, the Iraqi Security Forces, in and around the capital are still defending the capital. And it's not like ISIL hasn't posed a threat there. You may have noticed that some of the strikes that we've taken lately in the last week or so have been south and southwest of Baghdad, because we know they continue to threaten the capital.




That is from a press briefing today.  But it's the Pentagon's press briefing.  Even though the State Dept can't or won't do press briefings so far this week, the Pentagon can. 

I guess when you do nothing, you have nothing to talk about?


Does it bother anyone?

And does anyone have a memory or have we all erased our brains?

The US government was supposed to go heavy on diplomacy before.

It was 2007. 

Bully Boy Bush called for a 'surge' in the number of US troops.

Anyone remember why?

This was, the White House insisted, to give the Iraqi officials time to work on political solutions.  And the US was going to help.

But all the US government has ever done is supply weapons and utilize the weapons and stir up the violence.

And, just as back then, no one wanted to point out that while the military was doing their part of the surge, the US' diplomatic effort was half-hearted and a non-starter.

As it was then, so it is now.

It's not as if Iraq is dealing with only one political crisis, it's multiple crises.  On today's Fresh Air (NPR -- link is audio and text), Dexter Filkins discussed Iraq with Terry Gross:


GROSS: This is FRESH AIR and if you're just joining us, my guest is Dexter Filkins. He's a writer for The New Yorker. He covered the Iraq war for The New York Times, won several awards for doing that. He's covered the whole region for many years. He just went to Kurdistan in the north of Iraq from a period of June through August. He made two trips during that period for a total of about a month's time. And now he has a piece in The New Yorker called "The Fight Of Their Lives: The White House Wants The Kurds To Help Save Iraq From ISIS, The Kurds May Be More Interested In Breaking Away." That's the title and subtitle of the piece.
So why did you want to go to Kurdistan for this piece that you just wrote?


FILKINS: Well the - you know, the Kurds are - I mean, when everybody looks at Iraq including me and you just say Iraq, what do you think of? I mean, you think of chaos, and car bombs, and bloodshed, and political strife and stalemate and everything else. And when you go to Kurdistan, this small corner of Iraq, there's nothing - it's nothing like that. And it really struck me when I was there writing the piece earlier this year when I was there doing a piece on Maliki in Baghdad and I was in Baghdad and I wanted to go to Kurdistan. And I had been in Baghdad for about three weeks - and Baghdad in 2014 looks pretty much the way it did in 2004. It's - despite the fact that the Iraqi government is pumping enormous amounts of oil and making tons of money, they're the second-largest producer in OPEC. We're talking tens of billions of dollars, $85 billion a year. There's just not much evidence of that oil money being spent and I think frankly, it's because a lot of it's being stolen. But, it's not a happy story - but, Baghdad's a wreck. I mean, it looks pretty much the way it did during the war.
And then I got on a plane and I flew to Erbil, which is the capital of Kurdistan. And it's like - you know, you feel like Dorothy (laughter) and it's amazing. You know, there's a Jaguar dealership in Erbil and there's sushi restaurant and there's dance clubs. And I remember one night I'd been out of town and I drove back in at 3 a.m. and I found a liquor store open and bought a six-pack of beer at 3 o'clock in the morning in the Middle East. I mean, that's impossible anywhere for a thousand miles. So it's such a shock when you see it. You think, oh, my God, I can't believe I'm still in Iraq. And in a way - and really that's what the story's about - in a way, it's not part of Iraq, not anymore.


GROSS: And they don't want to be part of Iraq anymore.



FILKINS: No, I mean, sort of technically - technically they're part of Iraq, but, you know, they don't want to be and, you know, a de facto way, in a very real way, they're not, they're not part of Iraq. I mean, they're pulling away. And I think they want to make it official and I think probably - I mean, you can never foretell the future in that part of the world - but probably it will be independent, I think, sooner rather than later, although it's hard to tell exactly when.


There are so many problems in Iraq, so many crises, destroying unity and what's the new prime minister doing?


While he's unable to build political unity at this time,   Haider al-Abadi, is willing to make waves internationally.  Kristina Fernandez (China Topix) reports he declared today that Iraq had "credible intelligence" that the Islamic State was plotting an attack on the subway systems in Paris and NYC. 

He insisted the information was reliable because it had come from suspects in Iraqi custody.

Huh?

The Iraq interrogations are known as torture sessions -- they even killed a bodyguard of then-Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi during one of them.

So, at best, whatever al-Abadi thinks or thought he has was most likely the product of torture.

Terry Atlas and Angela Greiling Keane (Bloomberg News) quote White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden declaring, "We have not confirmed such a plot, and would have to review any information from our Iraqi partners before making further determinations.  We take any threat seriously and always work to corroborate information we receive from our partners. We're obviously very focused on the issue of foreign fighters."  The State Dept's Marie Harf went on CNN and suggested maybe it was true.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

Thursday, September 25, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HOLDER'S OUT! OVER A CRAWLER!

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


FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O THIS AFTERNOON WAS ALL SET FOR A CRAWLER BUT AS HE MOSIED OVER TO THE FOOD TABLE, ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER HAD ALREADY GRABBED IT AND WAS CHEWING AWAY.

"DARN IT!" BARRY O EXCLAIMED.  "DARN IT ALL TO HECK!  I AM SO TIRED OF BEING DISRESPECTED!  I AM SO SICK OF IT!  YOU ARE FIRED!"

"ME?" ASKED HOLDER.

"YOU! GET OUT!"






I don't understand how we can be so stupid to think these 'precision' bombings are accomplishing thing.  They're not.

I don't favor US boots on the ground.  But if Barack was announcing that the boots on the ground -- which already there and, yes, already engaged in combat -- if he were announcing/admitting that and coming up with someway to use them, it wouldn't be a plan I'd back but I wouldn't dispute that it was a plan.

What Barack's doing is nonsense on every level.

If you want the US to 'defeat' the Islamic State militarily (I don't think that's possible), then you're going to have to do something more than selective bombing.

Let's stop being stupid about that at least.

I don't believe there is a military answer.  I believe that bombing is just going to breed more terrorism.  I believe a number of Islamic State men who have been killed (some of who were Islamic State and some of whom were not) have loved ones they've left behind and I don't believe that the loved ones are saying, "Thank goodness he got killed!"  I think resentments and anger are being bred by Barack's actions.

I also think civilians are being put at risk.  Some are being killed and there's no point in kidding around about that.  There's never been a series of ongoing strikes anywhere that didn't result in the death of at least a few civilians -- which is why terms like "collateral damage" were invented in the first place.

So what's the solution.

For years now, with the prison breaks in Iraq and the prisoners who don't get recaptured -- and most don't -- we've repeatedly pointed out here that the escapees are able to blend and elude capture because the communities are sympathetic.

It's not, "Oh, you're a Sunni?  I'm a Sunni too!  I won't rat you out to the police for that reason!"

The sympathy comes from the fact that, under thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Sunni community was targeted.  Sunnis were taken away, many times without arrest warrants only to vanish into the jails and prisons of Iraq -- jails and prisons infamous -- even post-Saddam Hussein -- for torture and abuse.

Add in that not only were Sunni suspects arrested but so were relatives of suspects.

The Iraqi forces show up at a home looking for 28-year-old Ali Hammadi.  Ali's not home.  But his wife is.  Or his dad.  Or his mom.  Or his grandparents or maybe even a child.  There was a protest this week in Iraq calling for the Sunni children to be released from Iraq's prisons and jails.

That may shock you.  It shouldn't.

The US government instituted this practice in the early years of the Iraq War -- showing far less ethics than even the mob.  And Nouri carried it over.  If he couldn't get you, he'd arrest one of your relatives.  No arrest warrant for them, maybe no hearing for them, and they disappear into Iraq's overpopulated jails and prisons.

And that's why many Sunnis don't give a damn when there's a prison escape.  That's why their attitude is, "Good."  Too many of them have family members or friends who have been wrongly imprisoned.

This and other mistreatment is why some Sunnis join the Islamic State, join with the Islamic State in actions (worded that way because they assist in actions but do not join the Islamic State) and/or look the other way when they might otherwise alert authorities to suspicious persons.





RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
  • "Iraq"

    Wednesday, September 24, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! HE JUST DOESN'T LIKE 'EM!

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


    FADED CELEBRITY AND FOREVER HIMBO BARRY O HAS NOW GONE TO WAR ON 7 MUSLIM COUNTRIES.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O INSISTED IT WAS NOTHING PERSONAL AND THEN DECLARED, "I JUST DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE STINKY-POOS.  THEY UPSET ME.  BUT IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL.  I JUST WISH THEY WOULD ALL DIE.  BIT OLD STINKY POOS."




    Michael Crowley (Time magazine) documents the US mission creep in Iraq:


    From a podium in the White House’s state dining room on the night of Aug. 7, Obama gravely described his authorization of two military operations. One was to stop ISIS’s advance on the Iraqi city of Erbil, which Obama described as a threat to Americans stationed there. The other was to rescue thousands of Yezidi people besieged by ISIS fighters atop Sinjar Mountain.
    [. . .]
    On a Sunday afternoon ten days later, the White House quietly issued a statement announcing air strikes with the goal of liberating the Mosul dam from the clutches of ISIS militants. 
    [. . .]
    Then, on Sept. 7, came word of still another mission: A Pentagon statement said the U.S. was now bombing ISIS around the Haditha dam, in western Iraq—far from Erbil, Sinjar and Mosul. By now, American drones and planes had conducted about 150 strikes in the country. The U.S. was conducting a de facto air campaign against ISIS in support of Iraq’s government.


    Crowley continues with his documentation but for those who need a single example of the mission creep, Michelle Tan (Army Times) reports:

    As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
    Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
    An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”


    Yeah, that never-ending Iraq War is expanding.  David Corn(nuts) and all the other trashy whores can toss aside ethics and offer justifications but the reality is there for anyone who wants to see it.



    Flash from Mexico
    The Toreadors have all turned gay
    Roman whores have quit to seek a better way
    Dope has undermined the morale of
    The Buckingham Palace guards
    Motorcycle gangs ride naked down Hollywood Boulevard

    If through all the madness
    We can stick together
    We're safe and sound
    The world's just inside out and upside down

     -- "Safe and Sound," written by Carly Simon and Jacob Brackman, first appears on Carly's Hotcakes

    In the crazy, upside down world we live in, Christi Parsons and WJ Hennigan (Los Angeles Times) can report:


    President Obama said Tuesday that he will "do what's necessary" to fight the Sunni Muslim extremists targeted in a fierce round of U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria and that he'll do so with the support of regional partners whose coordinated bombing makes it "clear to the world that this is not America's fight alone."
    Speaking just before his departure for New York to meet with world leaders at the United Nations, Obama said the bombings he ordered overnight had the support of Arab coalition partners.

    So how long does this crazy last?

    The 'plan' is nothing but bombing.

    If the US wasn't taking part in the bombings in Iraq and Syria (along with France), the White House would be decrying these actions, would be insisting that the country or countries carrying them out needed to be punished.

    In what world is bombing a country a 'plan' for peace?


    In New York today, NINA notes, Iraq's Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari met up with the Danish Foreign Minister Martin Legurd.  And Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in New York today for the United Nations' General Assembly.

    Iraq's President Fuad Masum didn't arrive in New York today.  Because he was already there. All Iraq News notes he arrived on Monday.

    With so much of the government out of the country, maybe it's good that Iraq now has three vice presidents?

    Of course, with Nouri al-Maliki being one, that means the other two, Osama al-Nujaafi and Ayad Allawi, must spend the bulk of their time ensuring Nouri's not carrying out a coup.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Hype"
    "Iraq"

    Tuesday, September 23, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! HE'S GOT SOME ADVICE!

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

    FADED CELEBRITY AND BIG BLATHERER BARRY O IS DETERMINED TO KNOCK KRIS AND BRUCE JENNER OUT OF THE NEWS CYCLE AND SO HE DECLARED TODAY THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD SHOULD FOLLOW AMERICA'S LEAD ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

    SO, CHINA, GET WITH THE PROGRAM.  SET YOUR A/C DOWN TO 65 DEGREES BECAUSE YOU'RE PLANNING ON BARBECUING LATER AND CAN LEAVE THE SLIDING GLASS DOOR OPEN TO COOL OFF THE PATIO WHERE YOU'VE SET THE GRILL UP.

    AND, ITALY, NO MORE NEARBY WORK.  BUY A GAS GUZZLING CROWD AND HIT THE HIGHWAY.  ANYONE DRIVING LESS THAN AN HOUR FROM HOME TO WORK SHOULD BE PUT BEHIND BARS.  AND ANYONE CAUGHT CAR POOLING SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY SHOT.

    YES, THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS MUCH TO LEARN FROM THE U.S. ABOUT HOW TO WASTE ENERGY AND, YES, ABOUT HOW TO POLLUTE.







    David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."  The two go on to note that it may have stopped or diverted a "march toward Baghdad" but the bombings have not stopped the Islamic State which has seized Sichar.

    They write that today "the government acknowledged that it had lost control of the small town of Sichar" and they note the large number of Iraqi soldiers the Islamic State continues to kill.



    Where do you go from there?



    Let's go to a former US President: Jimmy Carter who declared today in video posted at WoodTV.com:


    Because when ISIS forces go into a city and take it over and then the United States goes over there with bombers and drops bombs, we are likely to kill more civilians than we do ISIS members.  And that's why it's very necessary to have our own people on the ground that can give us -- give us accurate information about exactly where to let a missile land or a bomb land to make sure it kills the ISIS terrorist instead of normal civilians.



    At least Jimmy noted civilian casualties.

    Because civilian casualties -- though overlooked by the press and ignroed by the White House -- do exist.


    Sunday, NINA reports, the military's (continued) bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods left 1 civilian dead and ten more injured.  Monday, mortar and rocket attacks left 7 civilians dead ("including a woman and a child") and twelve more people injured.


    Again, David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."



    It's not working.



    Is it legal?



    Probably not. 



    On this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) topics addressed included  the legality of Barack's current war actions.


    Heidi Boghosia:  Michael, the US recently began bombing the Islamic State or ISIL with the promise that there will be no ground troops. Let's talk a bit about the legality of this.

    Michael Ratner:  I think the legality of this is important but of course the first thing is this was a promise not to use any ground troops that was -- Obama made that publicly -- and a few days later, perhaps two days later, Gen Martin Dempsey, who's head of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, said he would not rule out the use of ground troops and said, that if necessary, he would recommend that to the president.  The Times then wrote a very strong editorial saying, here we go again, a slippery slope into a ground war, an endless war in the Middle East.  Not that I didn't think they had ground troops in there already, they did.  They called them advisors.  Who knows what they are doing?  I know my experience with "advisors" whether back in Vietnam or El Salvador is they don't just stand there with no weapons.  They often accompany the troops.  They give advice. And, if fired upon, they have the right to fire back. 

    Heidi Boghosian:  And are they -- the advisors -- sort of top level military personnel?  Who are they exactly?

    Michael Ratner:  I don't think they're necessarily top level  Some are, but some are training units, etc. So I think already we are having a certain number of so-called "ground troops" there.  But certainly, Gen Dempsey's statements indicate that we're only seeing the beginning and, as usual, the US population is "being lulled into" another major ground war in the Middle East.  One question as lawyers -- and this is technically a lawyers' show -- is the question of the legality of what the president is doing.  I've spent -- a number of us have -- a lot of our lives trying to restrain US war powers and the US, particularly the president or the Congress together, going to war around the world.  And it's been a task that's been particularly unsuccessful starting with Vietnam where we brought case after case and only at the end of the war really did Congress finally act to restrict the president, after there were secret wars carried out in Cambodia, in Laos, not just Vietnam.  As the devastation became too great, as the opposition here became great, and, really, as the Vietnamese started to win the war. 


    Heidi Boghosian:  Now, Michael, lets just give a basic lesson in government structure.  Right now, what could Congress do to restrain the president?

    Michael Ratner:  Let's step back one second, Heidi, and that is where I'm going.  Right now, the president has not asked for any authority from Congress to either bomb targets in Iraq that he claims are Islamic State targets or, presumably, if they've begun it, bombing in Syria -- again targets that they claim are Islamic State targets.  He has not asked for any authority.  He has , of course, had to use some funding that Congress, I think,  will  approve if he asks for more.  That is not considered "giving authority" by Congress just because they fund a war, that's some specific legislation.  But let's talk about what the president should be required to do and essentially how my office, other people, and I've litigated a dozen case around the world have utterly failed to be able to force the president to obey the Constitution or to force the president and the Congress to obey the UN Charter which also has a prohibition on the use of force. Coming out of Vietnam, Congress did a sort of mea culpa.  They said, 'Well, the president dragged us into this war.  We passed this Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was this open-ended resolution that the president said he could do whatever he wanted in Vietnam.  And he kept fighting the war based on this one broad authorization the Congress gave him over a false incident that took place when one Vietnamese boat supposedly -- but did not -- actually fire on a US ship.  President went to the Congress and they passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. They fought that war for years based on that open-ended resolution. 


    Heidi Boghosian: Sort of like the Weapons of Mass Destruction justification. 

    Michael Ratner:  Like that exactly.  That resolution, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, you could liken to the authority that Congress gave the president to go to war in Afghanistan called The Authorization To Use Military Force.  But let's keep stepping back to Vietnam.  So after Vietnam, it cost some 50,000-plus  American lives, possibly 2 million Vietnamese lives, the devastation of our country politically and in the streets but particularlly of course in Vietnam where it's still paying a very heavy cost from Agent Orange to the numbers of people killed.  So Congress then passes what's called a War Powers Resolution.  People here that bandied about a lot.  What the War Powers Resolution did was Congress said, "Look it, we don't want to be in the situation of Vietnam again.'  The president, yes, is required to go to Congress before he can go to war with any country.  That's Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.  The framers were very clear, 'We don't want a president making war on his own.  We want war to be harder to make not easier.  We think it's harder to make if the people who are actually representatives of people and who are paying the costs and are losing their children will have to consent to that war. 

    And we'll pick up from there later in the week (hopefully tomorrow).



    "Iraq"