Saturday, August 22, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON CAN HANDLE LUKEWARM

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



REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY INSISTED, "I CAN DO A LOT WITH 39/9% SUPPORT -- I WORKED WITH MUCH LESS TO CONTINUE MY MARRIAGE."






Let's start with the idiots.

How stupid do you have to be to do this:

 retweeted


Chutzpah: Jeb blaming Obama for W's failure in Iraq. Must have forgotten it was Bush-Cheney who blew it there. Now he wants a do over? Plz..



Seriously?

How much of a fool and moron is Robert Jolley?

He's just a parrot for partisan spin, we get that.

He's not about anything that actually matters.

I oppose the ongoing Iraq War and have been speaking out against it publicly since 2002 in my offline life.


What has Baby Cum Pants Jolley done?

My tolerance for idiots is at an all time low.


Don't you ever pretend you give a damn about Iraq and then quote all time whore John Podesta.

Seriously, just stop Tweeting.

There's no come back for you.

Only other idiots will ever applaud you.

You belong to a movement of mass stupidity.



Dropping back to the March 28, 2007 snapshot:

Interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner (KPFA's Guns and Butter) today, professor Francis Boyle discussed how a 2003 exploration of impeachment by the Democrats was cut short when John Podesta announced that there would be no introduction of bills of impeachment because it would harm Democrats chances in the  2004 election.  Speaking of the measures being applauded by much in the media, big and small, Boyle declared, "It's all baloney.  All they had to do was just do nothing and Bush would have run out of money. . . .  The DNC fully supports the war, that was made clear to Ramsey [Clark] and me on 13 March 2003 and nothing's changed."  John Podesta, former Clintonista, is with the Democratic talking point mill (that attempts to pass itself as a think tank) Center for American Progress -- with an emphasis on "Center" and not "Progress."  



See you can't Tweet or reTweet Podesta on the topic of Iraq unless you're trying to get the blood on his hands onto your own.


Here's David Swanson (in 2009, at Democrats.com) discussing Podesta's role in the Iraq War:


Boyle and Ramsey Clark presented the case for impeachment to Democratic congress members on March 13, 2003, just days before the bombs hit Baghdad. Impeachment could conceivably have prevented over a million deaths. The congress members present accepted the validity of the case, but John Podesta and others argued that it would be better for Democrats in the next election to let the war happen. We saw this same cold blooded calculation, of course, in 2007 and 2008, as the Democrats controlled the Congress and claimed to "oppose" the war while keeping it going. While Clark argued for the political advantage of pursuing impeachment, Boyle declined to address that point, preferring to stick to the facts. Sadly, electoral arguments are almost the only thing most congress members care about, and human life is not even on the list.



Need more?   Here's Boyle speaking to Dori Smith (Talk Radio Nation -- link is audio and transcript) from February 7, 2007:


Francis A. Boyle: We just need one person to introduce the bill with courage, integrity, principles, and of course a safe seat. In Gulf War one I worked with the late great Congressman Henry B. Gonzales on his bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. We put that one in. I did the first draft the day after the war started. So in my opinion there is no excuse for these bills not to have been put in already. In fact, on 13 March 2003, Congressman John Conyers convened a meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to debate putting in immediate bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, to head off the war. There were draft bills sitting on the table that had been prepared by me and Ramsey Clark. And the Congressman invited Ramsey and me to come in and state the case for impeachment. It was a two hour debate, very vigorous debate, obviously all of these lawyers there. And most of the lawyers there didn't disagree with us on the merits of impeachment. It was more as they saw it a question of practical politics. Namely, John Podesta was there, Clinton's former White House chief of staff, who said he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and they were against putting in immediate bills of impeachment because it might hurt whoever their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. Well at that time no one even knew who their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. I didn't argue the point, I'm a political independent. It was not for me to tell Democrats how to elect their candidates. I just continued arguing the merits of impeachment. But Ramsey is a lifelong Democrat and he argued that he felt that putting in these bills of impeachment might help the Democrats and it certainly wasn't going to hurt them in 2004.



So when the right thing could have been done, when the Iraq War could have been stopped before it started, when everything could have been changed, there was John Podesta arguing to destroy Iraq, to destroy the lives of the Iraqi people, so that Democrats could win the 2004 elections?  (For the record, the whore was wrong even when it came to electability: the Dems lost in the 2004 election -- they lost the presidency, the House and the Senate both remained under Republican control with Republicans increasing their seats -- in the single digits, but it's an increase -- in both houses of Congress.)


Who's getting the do over?  John Podesta?

Again, I've spoken out against the Iraq War all along.

I'll be damned if some cheap whore tries to reTweet War Criminal John Podesta and pretend Podesta has some standing on the topic of Iraq.

US House Rep John Conyers wanted to bring charges of impeachment and that would have ended it all.

But there was John The Infected Whore Podesta saying don't impeach Bully Boy Bush because it would harm election chances in 2004.

John Podesta is the last one to ever call bulls**t on anyone -- his entire life (and that of his brother Tony) has been nothing but bulls**t and people are dead as a result, millions of Iraqis included.

Podesta should be in a holding cell waiting to be tried at The Hague.


That stupid idiots on Twitter, caught up in their own bulls**t election, want to whore like Podesta is shameful.

Here's Frances A. Boyles' statement on the 10th anniversary of the start of the illegal war:


Since this is the tenth anniversary of the Bush war against Iraq, concerning Democratic Party support for it: On March 13, 2003 Congressman John Conyers convened an   emergency meeting  in Washington DC at a law firm right down the street from the White House on the Eve of War  to consider, discuss  and debate  my draft Bill to impeach Bush and Cheney to try to stop that war. He invited Ramsey Clark and me to come in and debate the case for impeachment. The debate was 2 hours long. He also  invited in about 40 top NGO  honchos affiliated with the Democratic Party, including John Podesta, for the debate. I will not name the rest of them here, but I will never forget these pro-war cowards and hypocrites for the rest of my life-- not including Congressman Conyers. At the end of 2 hours  of vigorous debating, we adjourned with my draft Bill of Impeachment sitting on the table. As Ramsey and I walked out of the building to take our separate cabs,  I turned to him  and said : “ Ramsey, I don’t understand it. Why didn’t those people take me up on my offer to stay here,   polish up my Bill of Impeachment immediately, and put it in right away to try to stop this war?” And Ramsey replied: “I think most of the people there want a war.” The Democrats  supported that war from the get-go. And this includes the Democratic National Committee. Podesta was there on their behalf and in the name of the DNC put the kybosh on my Bill of Impeachment designed to  stop Bush’s war against Iraq.





As Vanessa Williams says at the end of "Running Back To You," "Get the message?  Nuff said."




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




Wednesday, August 19, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY GETS EXPOSED (BUT KEEPS HER CLOTHES ON!)

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

IT TAKES A CRANKY!

OR THAT'S WHAT CRANKY CLINTON WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE.

TWICE IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, CRANKY HAS INSISTED THAT SHE PUT HER E-MAIL SCANDAL INTO THE "PUBLIC ARENA" BY INSISTING THAT HER E-MAILS BE MADE PUBLIC.


TWICE SHE'S INSISTED THAT.



IT'S A SELF-SERVING LIE SO IT'S AT LEAST IN KEEPING WITH HER CREED.






Starting in the US where Hillary Clinton continues to seek the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination.  This despite rumors that former US Vice President Al Gore may step into the mix. In the meantime, Hillary's apparently on a self-destruct mission as evidence by her campaign's deployment of Mad Maddy Albright.

Albright is being used to lecture/hector Jeb Bush who is seeking the GOP's presidential nomination.

Or that's what the campaign hopes.

But all Albright really does is underscore the half a million killed during the presidency of Bill Clinton.


"We think the price is worth it," Mad Maddie replied when asked by Lesley Stahl (60 Minutes) about the half-a-million Iraqi children killed due to the sanctions imposed on Iraq during Bill Clinton's presidential terms.  As FAIR pointed out:

It’s worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl–a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. In general, the response from government officials about the sanctions’ toll has been rather different: a barrage of equivocations, denigration of U.N. sources and implications that questioners have some ideological axe to grind (Extra!, 3-4/00).


During Hillary's attempt to secure the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination, Mad Maddie was always the first Hillary advisor cited when critics wanted to smear Hillary's campaign:






Mad Maddie was used in 2008 to (a) demonstrate that Hillary was out of touch and (b) to underscore that long before Bully Boy Bush started the illegal war in 2003, Bill Clinton oversaw the slaughter of a half-million Iraqi children in what some foolishly saw as 'more peaceful times.'

Mad Maddie shooting off her tired yap this week only reminds people that when it comes to killing Iraqis, Bill and Hillary have been doing it for decades.






. is right: We can't afford another President Bush who would take us backward on Iraq and foreign policy. 




And the world can afford another President Clinton who would kill another 500,000 Iraqi children?


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



 

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THE WASHINGTON POST IS ON THE CASE!

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


TODAY, THEY WONDER THAT.

AFTER THE POLLING DIPS, AFTER THE SCANDALS, AFTER 2008'S CAMPAIGN AND MARK PENN AND . . . 

TODAY THE WASHINGTON POST WONDERS IF MAYBE CRANKY CLINTON ISN'T A GOOD CANDIDATE.

HOW THEY EVER BROKE WATERGATE REMAINS A PUZZLER.






Starting in Iraq where forever thug and former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki remains absent despite the focus on him.  Emma Gatten (Independent) reports:


Former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki could face trial over the fall to Isis of Iraq’s second city of Mosul, which led to the declaration of its caliphate last summer.
Mr Maliki is one of around 30 senior officials named in a report that has been approved in parliament. It calls for Mr Maliki to face trial for what it says was negligence in choosing corrupt officers who failed to respond to the threat adequately.
“No one is above the law and accountability to the people,” said parliament speaker Salim al-Jaburi in a statement after receiving the report, which was passed by a show of hands in parliament. 


Al Mada reminds that a little over a year ago, while still prime minister, Nouri was insisting the fall of Mosul was due to foreign countries and their leaders but Parliament's investigation discovered that the chief issue was a lack of troops present in Mosul followed by the conflicts between political officials.  Euronews adds, "According to the report, Maliki had an inaccurate picture of the
threat to the northern city because he chose commanders who engaged in corruption and failed to hold them accountable."


It was June 2014, when the Islamic State took over the city.  Don Melvin (CNN) offers, "Mosul, a city of more than 1 million people about 250 miles (400 kilometers) north of Baghdad, is one of the most important cities in northern Iraq. Its fall to the terrorist group ISIS was followed by disastrous consequences for residents in the area."

Mosul remains under the control of the Islamic State to this day.

Kitabat reports that some members of Nouri's State of Law coalition are threatening to walk out on the Parliament if Nouri is charged with anything and that Speaker of Parliament Saleem al-Jubouri held a press conference today to note that no names could be stricken from the report and no one was above the law.


Nouri left over the weekend for what was supposed to be a brief visit to Iran -- a visit that's already expanded to days and has many wondering what exactly he is up to?





  • Thts an insult to  PM. Thy should have respected the reforms&supported wht benefits -not their interests.


  • Now that he's in Iran, Nouri's become quite the chatty Cathy on the topic of reforms or 'reforms' proposed by Haider al-Abadi.  While he praised these reforms while he was in Iraq, he's since changed his opinion.  Nour Malas, Ali A. Nabhan and Ghassan Adnan (Wall St. Journal) report:

    Mr. Maliki, who initially gave a statement of support for the government overhaul, has since appeared to question some of the measures. In local television interviews, he called the moves to eliminate the vice presidency posts and a call to allow the prime minister to replace local governors "unconstitutional."
     

    What will happen to Nouri?

    Maybe nothing at all.

    Aziz Alwan (Bloomberg) reports:


    The case isn’t likely to be raised to “the level of high treason,” and it’s too early to say what will happen next, according to Hameed al-Fayath, a Baghdad-based political analyst.
    Though Maliki’s popularity is suffering, “he still has many supporters all over Iraq, especially among the Shiite militias that are fighting Islamic State right now, the security forces, and in politics,” he said.


    Nouri has much to answer for.  Last night, we noted that the press was overlooking the obvious with regards to the findings by the Iraqi Parliament on the 2014 fall of Mosul: That then-prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki had refused to nominate anyone to be in charge of the security ministries throughout his second term (2010 - 2014).

    Back in July, 2012, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support."  

    He never filled them. 

    In January 2011, when they were still vacant, Ayad Allawi (the winner of the 2010 elections) stated they wouldn't be filled.  The world press, always full of something other than wisdom, was insisting that, in a few weeks, Nouri would nominate someone to hold the posts.

    Allawi said Nouri wouldn't and that this was a power grab.

    Allawi was correct.

    For four years, Iraq was without heads for the security ministries.

    Which is part of the reason the military rise of the Islamic State isn't a surprise.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"