Wednesday, October 08, 2014

THIS JUST IN! BARACK DUBS HIMSELF 'THE FAT GIRL'!

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

NO ONE WANTS TO BE SEEN WITH FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.  THEY'LL TAKE HIS MONEY BUT THAT'S ALL.

"HOW DID I BECOME THE FAT GIRL?" A FRUSTRATED BARRY O ASKED THESE REPORTERS TODAY?

"SUDDENLY, I'M THE FAT GIRL AND NO ONE WANTS TO BE SEEN WITH ME!  THEY'LL TAKE MY MONEY, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN WITH ME!  I'M NOT FAT!  AM I?  I'M GOING TO GO PURGE AGAIN TO GET DOWN TO 87 POUNDS.  THEN NO ONE WILL CALL ME FAT!"





There seems to be some confusion over this part of yesterday's snapshot:


Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has taken public many criticisms that he made in real time privately to the administration.  They can't deny these charges, so the administration has tried to attack Leon.  I know Leon and I like him.  I also know and like Vice President Joe Biden.  But . . .

I don't think Joe's ever said anything as idiotic as what Jason Ditz quotes him as saying:


Vice President Joe Biden was quick to criticize Panetta, although not on the content of his hawkish comments. Rather, Biden said it was “inappropriate” for Panetta to criticize Obama at all, on anything, until after 2016, and that he should “at least give the guy a chance to get out of office.”


A friend was joking over the weekend that "Uncle Joe" should run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination with the slogan Free Flow Joe to note that Joe lacks any filter or self-censorship.

And he's said many dumb things but to insist that Leon or anyone is unable to criticize Barack for two more years is so deeply stupid and so deeply offensive that Joe, who doesn't have a real shot at the presidential nomination, should go ahead now and announce he won't be seeking it. 

I like John Kerry and I supported his 2004 run.  When he had an incident that was just too destructive, I noted here he should give up plans to seek a second run in 2008.  Joe's remarks are the same type of offensive.  You really can't come back from that.  It doesn't go away and it undermines you at every step.

That's far from Joe's only problem remarks of late. As Alsumaria reported, Joe spent the weekend working the phones with the UAE and Turkey after he publicly declared that the two governments supported terrorism.


A number of e-mails maintain that I stated (stated, not wrote, the snapshots are dictated) Joe had blown his shot at the presidency due to his remarks about the UAE and Turkey.

That's not what I said.

That error was glaring because you don't say what Joe said -- whether it's true or not -- about Middle East countries who are assisting you with your 'plan' to destroy the Islamic State -- especially when you're trying to shore up support in the region.

At today's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Jen Psaki noted:

Okay. I have two items for all of you at the top. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk are in Amman today, where they met with tribal leaders and sheikhs who have bravely resisted ISIL in Iraq. General Allen and Ambassador McGurk praised their courage and affirmed that those who stand against ISIL will continue to be supported by the international coalition. They also discussed our support for Prime Minister Abadi’s vision of a united Iraq and a united Iraqi National Guard that both empowers local populations to protect their communities and incorporates those forces within the formal national security structure.
Tomorrow, General Allen and Ambassador McGurk will meet with the King of Jordan and other Jordanian Government officials. They will also travel tomorrow to Cairo and then will be in Ankara October 9th and 10th. And we’ll have, of course, further readouts of their meetings there as the week continues.


Joe's remarks threw a monkey wrench into the efforts of reaching out to other MidEast countries.

The remarks were poorly timed and diplomatic efforts had to come to a sudden stop in order to address the situation Joe created.

I stated Joe's criticism of Leon Panetta was the problem.

Joe can be as stupid as he wants to be but while he's the Vice President of the United States, he needs to defend the Constitution -- in fact, he took an oath to do so.

Free speech is not aided by Joe's ridiculous and undemocratic barriers.

And that's not an open society or democracy -- one in which people must wait until an elected official is out of office for him or her to face any criticism.

Leon Panetta does not just have a legal right to speak out, he has a duty to as a member of a democracy.  And open society only exists when people can speak freely.

Anyone -- including Joe -- can disagree with what Leon says. 

But if Leon feels it's important to democracy, he has a duty to speak out.

Joe makes many silly comments -- he also makes his share of wise ones -- but that wasn't the problem with the issue Jason Ditz was reporting on.

The problem was that Joe Biden argued Leon should be quiet until Barack was out of office.

That goes against the Constitution, it goes against free speech, it goes against democracy and open societies.  Someone who expresses that sort of belief -- a fleeting one or a firmly held one, it doesn't matter -- should not run for the US presidency.

I know there are many things going on in the world and that Joe says his share of stupid things; however, I am surprised that the media failed to pick up on the statements, specifically the undemocratic nature of them.


Joe's not the only one saying stupid things.  Democratic member of the House of Representative Dutch Ruppersberger has added his voice to the cry for more war and US boots (officially) on the ground in Iraq.  Peter Sullivan (The Hill) reports the House Intelligence Committee's Ranking Member appeared on Erin Burnett's CNN program last night and noted he was open to (more) US troops on the ground in Iraq.  He observed, "We have boots on the ground right now but they're not out there fighting."  Ruppersberger apparently wants them to be but frets that this would be announced ahead of their entering combat because, he says, "The only thing I'm concerned about, you don't tell the enemy what you're going to do."


Uh, yeah, you do.

You declare a war, Dutch.

Do you not know how it works, are you that stupid?

Maybe you are.

It's one thing not to offer battle plans to the enemy or 'enemy.' 

But saying, "X will lead to combat" -- or saying "We are declaring war" -- those are basic statements.

Again, a war is supposed to start with a declaration.

Maybe Dutch should stop flapping his gums and brush up on the US Constitution?

One of the reasons declaring war is not hidden?

Because in a democracy citizens are supposed to weigh in.

In a democracy, citizens are over the officials.  The officials work for the citizens.

Dutch seems to struggle with that concept.  It's a shame people in his district can't give him two years off via the November election so he could take some time to learn about civic participation and other elements of an open society.

The bombing of Iraq is disturbing, the ongoing illegal war is disturbing. 

But so are undemocratic statements made by elected officials who betray the Constitution with their guttural
expressed remarks that embrace totalitarianism and deception.


 US President Barack Obama has no plan.  By Dutch and Joe's 'educated' opinions, I should be silent about that.

No, I'm an American citizen and I can offer my opinion and should.  And so should all voices in a democracy.

 


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



Posted by at

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

THIS JUST IN! BARRY O RESPONDS TO PANETTA!

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


FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O IS FACING CRITICISM FROM MANY BUT THE MOST DAMAGING MAY BE FROM SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON PANETTA.  


BARRY O RESPONDED TO THE COMMENT TO THESE REPORTERS, "WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING A LAW PROFESSOR?  PEOPLE LOVE LAWYERS!  WE'RE LIKE RIGHT UP THERE WITH SEXY FIRE MEN AND STUFF."





It is now months since US President Barack Obama sent the first wave of 'advisors' into Iraq to determine what was needed.  The 'advisors' were US military in one form or another.

So is it really that surprising that what Barack's so-called 'plan' ended up being was a military action?

Barack has repeatedly (and rightly) insisted that what Iraq needs is a political solution, that only such a solution will provide stability and ease the tensions at the root of Iraq's multiple crises; however, his  'advisors' sent in to determine how to address the crises were not experts in politics or diplomacy.

Had they been, Barack might have had some sort of political aspect for his 'plan.'

Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts (Bemidji Pioneer) note in their syndicated column:

The president has set out two clear principles. The first is to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” the extreme jihadist movement also known as ISIS and Islamic State that now occupies large swaths of Iraq and Syria. The second is to accomplish that goal without deploying American combat troops.
“As your commander in chief,” he told soldiers based in Tampa, Fla., “I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”
But what if those two principles are not compatible? What if the resources Obama is prepared to commit — American airpower and advisers, working with local military assets — are not sufficient to accomplish the mission of crippling ISIL? Then what?

Then what indeed?

Yesterday, Barack added to the military 'plan' of endless bombing by putting US Apache helicopters into the mix.  Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) explains:

The United States escalated its involvement yesterday, sending helicopters into combat against targets west of Baghdad — the first time low-flying Army aircraft have engaged in President Obama’s new campaign in Iraq, despite promises it would not include “boots on the ground.”
Until yesterday, U.S. airstrikes in Iraq had involved Air Force and Navy jets and drones. The use of the low, slow-flying helicopters also suggests the security situation in Iraq’s Anbar province is deteriorating. Last week, the Islamic State terrorists overran numerous Iraqi bases and towns.


Dan Lamothe (Washington Post) explains, "Using Apaches introduces considerably more risk to the U.S. troops involved, however. While fighter jets and bombers might have to contend with mechanical malfunctions, they can operate in Iraq unimpeded by rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons that can be used to target low-flying aircraft. Helicopters have been shot down over Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia in the last 25 years."  And an Iraqi helicopter was shot down days ago by the Islamic State, "AP reports the Islamic State 'shot down an Iraqi military attack helicopter' near Baiji on Friday. NINA adds both pilots were killed in the crash."

Of the helicopters, RT observes, "Their use in aggressive bombing of areas controlled by Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) could signal mission creep for the US military, which US President Barack Obama has said will not take part in ground-force operations."  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) points out, "The eventuality of such a shootdown is likely to mean US ground troops sent on rescue missions to try to recover the downed pilots. This could end up being the pretext for launching a ground operation against ISIS, and such an incident seems only a matter of time."  Ben Farmer (Irish Independent) echoes that point, "Though they are known for their formidable battlefield firepower, they are also more vulnerable to ground fire than the attack jets and bombers that have so far led the air campaign."

Of the air campaign, right-wing  Kimberly Kagan and her husband Frederick (Foreign Policy) are unhappy with the level of war Barack is providing and they want ground troops and they want them now:

The U.S. has hit about 334 mostly tactical targets in both Syria and Iraq in the intervening 50-odd days. To put that number in perspective, the 76-day air campaign that toppled the Taliban in 2001 dropped 17,500 munitions on Afghanistan. Those bombs directly aided the advance of thousands of Afghan fighters supported by U.S. special operators capable both of advising them and of identifying and designating targets to hit. There are no U.S. special operators on the ground in Iraq or Syria, no pre-planned or prepared advance of Iraqi security forces, and no allies on the ground in Syria. This is not an air campaign.


It's also not a 'plan' but you probably have to be concerned about Iraq, and not getting sexually aroused by the killing, to notice that.


Barack's plan is getting attention today -- for so many reasons.  Reasons like the bombing in Hit which has resulted in 42 people being injured and 24 killed.



 · 17 hours ago

:
مقتل(24)مدنيا، وإصابة 42 آخرين بجروح -في حصيلة أولية-؛ جراء قيام الطيران باستهداف سوق شعبي وسط قضاء هيت.
.

View more photos and videos





What you can see above with your own eyes and what medical sources in Hit report isn't good enough for the US military command.  Nabih Bulos and Patrick J. McDonnell (Los Angeles Times) quote CENTCOM spokesperson Major Curtis J. Kellogg insisting, "We have seen the media reports alleging civilian casualties in Hit, Iraq.  However, based on our current assessment, we believe them to be false and have seen no evidence to corroborate these claims. I can assure you that prior to any mission, every precaution is taken to ensure we do not harm civilians or civilian facilities. However, we take all such reports seriously and look into them further."  By all means, look further at the photo and maybe take some time to speak with the local hospital.  You know Kellogg is just hoping there's no serious media interest -- like last week when US bombings in Mosul resulted in the deaths of 4 Iraqi civilians.  He's hoping there's no interest and, if that's the case, in a week or so you can expect CENTCOM to quietly release a minor statement acknowledging the 'regrettable' deaths and pretending that such deaths happen in spite of Barack's 'plan' as opposed to because of Barack's 'plan.'

The 'plan' is a failure.  The decision to send in US helicopters is an acknowledgment of that.  But it doesn't alter the 'plan,' it only feeds into the worst parts of the 'plan' and the overall failure of the 'plan.'






RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


Posted by at

Sunday, October 05, 2014

THIS JUST IN! WHO'S GETTING DEPORTED!

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



BUT THE FAMILY STREAK MAY BE RUNNING OUT . . . A DEMAND TO DEPORT BARRY O HIMSELF IS NOW BEING MADE.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "DEPORT ME?  SINCE MY FATHER GOT DEPORTED, WE OBAMAS HAVE LEARNED HOW TO HIDE OUT HERE, ESPECIALLY IN BOSTON!  CATCH ME IF YOU CAN!"




Former US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill has told a pack of lies.

Those lies smear Hillary and Barack.  If they were personally smeared -- Hillary or Barack said to be gay in Hill's efforts to court homophobia, for example -- I wouldn't waste time on the issue.  But this is about Iraq and that's what we cover.

Chris Hill is responsible for what went wrong in Iraq and for where Iraq is today.  He's not solely responsible.  Barack's responsible, for example, for nominating him, for trusting him for far too long and for a few other things.

But Hill's nonsense at POLITICO -- where else does nonsense go -- oh, right, Salon! -- is nothing but lies and spin.

Hill betrayed Barack's nomination and trust by doing a half-assed job and repeatedly lying to the administration about what was taking place in Iraq.

Hill betrayed Barack.  Not the other way around as Hill tries to paint it in his bad essay.


Hill insists that Hillary gave him no support when she was Secretary of State in 2009, she made one trip to Iraq and she left him alone and whine, whine, whine.

Hillary wasn't over Iraq. 

She might have liked to have been but Barack wasn't going to put her over Iraq.

Two reasons were Samantha Power.  She was Barack's advisor when he was in the Senate and she's had his ear ever since.  Power did not want Hillary in the administration (she can spin that if she wants but she didn't want Hillary in the administration at all -- however, once the two had to work together, they did get along -- Hillary can win people over and Power saw that she had misjudged Hillary and could own that reality).  That's reason one.  Reason two, which Power used to ensure Hillary wasn't in charge of Iraq, was that Hillary supported the Iraq War at the start.  Power said that judgment was fatal to moving forward in Iraq.  (Power herself supported the illegal war -- a fact she's denied and one that the press, in 2008, was eager to help her bury.)

Power was personally against Hillary and Hillary had supported the war and was notorious for that support.

Those are two reason which carried weight with Barack.

Here's the third:


During my last visit to Iraq in January, I expressed my reservations about the ability of the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister Maliki, to make the tough political decisions necessary for Iraq to resolve its sectarian divisions. Since my visit, Iraqi leaders have not met their own political benchmarks to share power, modify the de-Ba'athification laws, pass an oil law, schedule provincial elections, and amend their constitution. During his trip to Iraq last week, Senator Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I serve, confirmed that the Iraqi Government’s failures have reinforced the widely held view that the Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement, because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders.
I share Senator Levin’s hope that the Iraqi parliament will replace Prime Minister Maliki with a less divisive and more unifying figure when it returns in a few weeks. 


That statement was released by then-Senator Hillary Clinton in August of 2007.

I happen to agree with her -- and with Carl Levin. 

I think history and events since certainly demonstrate how accurate her publicly expressed hope was -- that the Parliament would vote Nouri out of office -- it would have been a no-confidence vote (which was attempted in the spring of 2012 but blocked by the White House via Jalal Talabani).

But here's was the thing for Barack -- how could Hillary be Secretary of State and interact with Nouri?

She couldn't. 

So she was not the lead on Iraq.

That's why she traveled, she had a lot of time to fill.  Unlike her predecessor Condi Rice, Hillary was not a lead on Iraq.

She can rightly step away -- to some degree -- from the chaos in Iraq now because she was not a lead on this issue. 

Nouri al-Maliki was notoriously paranoid.  We explained that here and how the State Dept had documented it and some wanted to scoff but, years later, the WikiLeaks Iraq State Dept cables demonstrated we were right and the term "paranoid" is applied to Nouri in them.

Nouri could not have worked with Hillary in any form because of her statements.  The White House knew that and addressed that.

 For those late to the party, Nouri al-Maliki was only booted out as prime minister over the summer.  His reign of terror ran from 2006 to 2014.

So for Chris Hill to lie and claim that Hillary wasn't there for him -- his snide remark about her ability to charm included -- is just a pack of lies.  And he was not her nominee.

He was Barack's nominee. 

Let's note another liar, CIA contractor Juan Cole.  The day after Hillary issued her statement we noted above -- a week after Carl Levin made his (Carl's statement was a joint statement with Senator John Warner)  -- Juan 'discovers' a rumor that there is a plot to topple Nouri.  It turns out, Juan insists, Bully Boy Bush wants to get rid of Nouri.

These lies were then spread by venereal disease carrier Daily Kos which reposted Juan's 'proof' that Ayad Allawi was going to be the new pm because -- among other things -- Allawi penned a column for the Washington Post!

How sinsister!!!!

Juan just makes s**t up -- or maybe follows CIA orders, who knows.

But Bully Boy Bush was not walking away from Nouri and you can say, "Well, C.I., sure, we know that now but back then --"

Back then, we knew it too.

Hillary's statement that we quoted?

A response for Bully Boy Bush's praise of Nouri to the VFW just before she released her statement.  Her statement was in response to Bully Boy Bush's comments.

From the White House transcript of that August 22, 2007 speech to the VFW:


Bully Boy Bush: Prime Minister Maliki is a good guy, a good man with a difficult job, and I support him. And it's not up to politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position -- that is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship. (Applause.) A free Iraq is not going to transform the Middle East overnight. But a free Iraq will be a massive defeat for al Qaeda, it will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. (Applause.)  


The next day, at his (un)Informed Comment, Juan Cole was spreading lies that Bully Boy Bush was walking away from 'poor' Nouri.  Cole hadn't read the speech and, as usual, didn't know a damn thing.


Back to Hill,  Barack made a mistake in choosing Chris.

In his article, Chris wants to paint Barack as disengaged and uninformed.

On some topics, that is true of Barack and his presidency.

But no one was more disengaged from Iraq and uninformed than Chris Hill.

At the start of his presidency, Barack cared a great deal about Iraq because it was how he won the White House.  He wrongly agreed to back Nouri in 2010 and that was based in part on Samantha Power insisting US forces would not be able to drawdown at the end of 2011 without the "stability" (the term she used) Nouri provided the country.

In 2010, Ayad al-Allawi won the elections. 

Power felt Allawi as prime minister was a question mark and she noted his "populist leanings" (again, her term) and how this could be a problem for the US because Nouri had no desire to represent the Iraqi people and was more inclined to ignore the will of the Iraqi people.  (Which does sum up his two terms as prime minister, on that Power was correct.)

Barack ultimately bears responsibility.  He is president and he made the decision.

But would he have made it if he received accurate reports? 

If the administration received accurate reports, I doubt even Samantha Power would have backed Nouri.  I think she would have smelled the stench wafting off him and how damaging he could be to her image of "Never Again!" and argued that Barack shouldn't support him for a second term.

Chris Hill was unsuited for the job he was nominated to perform.

He did not speak Arabic.  He had no knowledge of the Middle East and was an idiot when it came to Iraq.

We covered his confirmation hearing (see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th snapshot) and, despite weeks of briefing, he still didn't understand what was going on, what the issues were or what the facts were.  (He also showed up at the confirmation hearing with his hair needing to be combed and a food stain on his shirt.  Was he applying for night manager at Denny's or US Ambassador to Iraq?)




Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"




Posted by at

Thursday, October 02, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HE'S LOST PIERS!

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

FORMER CNN ANCHOR PIERS MONTGOMERY USED TO WORSHIP FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O. APPARENTLY NO LONGER. MONTGOMERY WROTE A BLISTERING COLUMN:


President Obama this week committed professional suicide. He managed to single-handedly alienate 200,000 employees in the American intelligence agencies by going on 60 Minutes and ruthlessly chucking them all under a bus over the rise of terror group ISIS. A more shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing it would be hard to find from a sitting President. The truth is that Obama is the one who underestimated ISIS, plunging his head ostrich-like into the sand and hoping they would go away without having to do anything to actually make them go away. Far from making America stronger, Obama has made the world’s greatest military power look weak. So weak that these Jihadist thugs think they can behead American citizens with impunity in glossy snuff movies. It’s time he got off the damn golf course, got up to speed with his intelligence briefings and focused on wiping out ISIS.  


REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARRY O LAMENTED, "IF I'VE LOST PIER, I'VE LOST MOST OF THE DUTCH AMISH COUNTRY AS WELL!"





TRICARE.

I am hearing the same story over and over from veterans and their spouses with children.

TRICARE is supposed to be coverage for service members and for veterans -- there's TRICARE for retired, etc.  Think of it as Blue Cross Blue Shield if you need to simplify it.

John and Joan are married and have a daughter named Jill.

John is not oversees, he's a service member but he gets stationed here and there.  They do a seven month stint in Colorado.  Five months in, Jill is vomiting and can't stop.  She's taken to the emergency room of the local hospital where they stabilize her.  Jill is taken to a doctor's office or clinic the next day and Dr. Michelle Wong says Jill needs to see a specialist, Dr. Andre Kumar.

I hope everyone's following example, it's pretty straight forward.

En route to Dr. Kumar's office, or after being seen, John and Joan are informed that the visit isn't 'authorized' so TRICARE won't be covering it.

I've heard this basic story over and over in the last four weeks when speaking to veterans groups.

TRICARE wants a PCP -- a primary care physician.  That would be your family doctor, the doctor you or your children see when you're sick.

John and Joan are not living in X and never moving.  The military wants them at this base for a limited time and then at that base.  And if there's no reason to change the PCP -- if the child isn't sick or can be treated in a clinic, for example -- the parents don't change the PCP.  Sometimes TRICARE does.

So when their child does get sick and they seek care, they're suddenly faced with costs and expenses they shouldn't have to deal with.  But TRICARE says their sick child can't see that specialist -- even if a doctor has made the referral -- because they didn't see their PCP.

I've tried to keep the above simple (there's also an issue of TRICARE assigning PCP's to relocated families).

TRICARE could keep things real simple by allowing service members and their families to see a specialist if they are referred by another doctor -- it should not have to be a PCP.

It is ridiculous.

Joan and John and Jill are not moving because they made the decision, they're moving because the US government is changing where they are stationed.  TRICARE needs to recognize that.

No service member should have to worry about the costs of caring for their children -- that's especially true when your child is in dire need of a specialist.


I've tried to keep the above simple.  I've used PCP because that's what most people are familiar with -- most with insurance -- but, for example, in TRICARE, the PCP is called the PCM.

Calling.  The other big issue.

As someone who has sat in one hearing after another where members of Congress like Patty Murray, Senator Richard Burr, Senator Bernie Sanders, US House Rep Jeff Miller and US House Rep Mike Michaud have repeatedly asked the VA if they need more money for employees or training or this or that and heard the VA say no?

Will someone ask the VA, someone in Congress, how they feel about their call center because veterans with health issues -- such as the example above -- are getting real tired of the wait.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

Posted by at

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

THIS JUST IN! HOW THEY FIRED HER!

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


THE WAY IT WORKED WAS THAT FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O GOT LIKE REALLY MAD AND STUFF AT JULIA PIERSON AND HE WAS ALL LIKE, 'DON'T LET HER SIT AT THE TABLE, TELL HER WE'RE HOLDING THESE SEATS.'

AND JULIA WAS ALL LIKE, "OKAY, I'LL EAT OVER HERE."

AND BARRY O WAS ALL, "I DON'T THINK SHE KNOWS HOW PISSED AT HER I AM."

AND SPOKESPERSON JOSH EARNEST WAS ALL, "TELL HER!"

AND HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR JEH JOHNSON WAS ALL, "YEAH, MAKE HER CRY!"

AND BARRY O WAS ALL, "OKAY, MAKE HER CRY."

SO JEH GOES OVER TO JULIA AND HE'S ALL LIKE, "YOU ARE FIRED!"

JULIA'S ALL, "NO WAY!  BARRY O WOULD NEVER BE SUCH A LITTLE S**T THAT HE'D HAVE SOMEONE ELSE FIRE ME!"

"OH, HE'S THAT LITTLE OF A S**T!" JEH INSISTED. 





The violence never ends in Iraq.  Yesterday, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counted at least 256 violent deaths for Monday.  Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) report that a "wave" of violence has left "at least 47 people" dead today. 

Violence hasn't stopped in Iraq.  Many are starting to register that.

At the Pentagon today, spokesperson Rear Adm Jack Kirby declared:


We've been pretty honest about the fact that military action alone will not win this effort, but that shouldn't be taken as an admission of ineffectiveness, and one of the ways we know we're having an effect is precisely because the terrorists have had to change their tactics and their communications and their command and control.  Yes, they're blending in more. Yes, they're dispersing, and yes they aren't communicating quite as openly or as boldly as they once were. That's a good thing, because if they aren't operating as freely, then they aren't as free to achieve their goals. 
That doesn't mean ISIL doesn't still pose a threat. It doesn't mean they aren't still trying and in some cases succeeding at taking and holding ground. No one said this would be easy or quick, and no one should be lulled into a false sense of security by accurate airstrikes. We will not, we cannot bomb them into obscurity.


Kirby was speaking at a press briefing and, during it, he was asked about yesterday's reports that the Islamic State was close to Baghdad.


Q: Can we go back to Baghdad for a minute? Because Iraqi officials are saying now there has been ISIS fighting as close as five miles south of Baghdad. So, understanding everything you said, what does that tell you about ISIS's capabilities and intentions towards Baghdad? What concerns do you have about it? And particularly, what looks to be their moves to get in and around Baghdad Airport?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, we've been watching this for awhile, Barb. It's not -- I understand, I've seen the coverage today that you know, they're within five to eight miles or whatever it is, how it's being reported. We have consistently seen them pose a threat to the capital city.
This is not a new thing. And they'll make an advance and they'll back off. They'll try another way. One of the -- you've seen several of the strikes that we've been doing and the last ten days to two weeks have been to the south and southwest of Baghdad because that's where they've kinda maneuvered to. So, they continuously pose a threat to the capital city, and we continuously, in concert with the Iraqi security forces, are trying to put them back.
But this should come as no surprise to anybody that they have designs on -- on Baghdad, as they have had designs on other cities and other places of infrastructure throughout the country.

Q: How convinced are you that Baghdad can be -- remain safe, that Iraqi forces can hold Baghdad, and that Iraqi forces can hold the airport?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: What I can tell you is -- with certainty is that we're going to do what we can to help Iraqi security forces maintain control of the capital city. As I've said before, they have -- Iraqi security forces in and around Baghdad have been performing well. They've stiffened their defenses. They have -- they have not allowed Baghdad to come under a major assault. They've -- they've done pretty well in and around the city.
And as I said, we've been helping from the air put pressure on ISIL.


Q: One last – to press the point one last time, can the Iraqis hold Baghdad and hold the airport on their own without you?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I am -- I am -- there's a lot of things I'm not good at. One of them is predicting the future. What I'll tell you is that we're -- we're watching it very closely. We have been watching it very closely. The Iraqi security forces have been continuing to stiffen their defense around the city. We believe that they've done a good job with that. They'll continue to focus on it.

Obviously, it's a -- it's a city of immense importance to them and to their government. It's clear they share the same sense of urgency about protecting the city, and so I think, you know, we're -- I can't predict anything one way or the other, other than to tell you what I can predict is we're going to continue to work with them and their defense -- their defenses of it.


By the way, while reporters covering the Pentagon could and did ask questions about Iraq in the press briefing, for the second day in a row at the US State Dept briefing, no reporter could be bothered to make time for the topic.

While the useless reporters covering State can't even pretend to be interested in Iraq, it's not that way at the Defense Dept or, for that matter, at the White House.

Yesterday, the first questions Josh Earnest, White House spokesperson, faced were about Iraq.



Q    Thanks, Josh.  The President in his “60 Minutes” interview last night, acknowledged that the United States underestimated what was happening with the Islamic State and also the Iraqi military’s ability to deal with it.  And I know that the President is reliant on the intelligence community and his advisors for those kinds of assessments, but I’m wondering if he sees himself as having any responsibility for that failure to connect the dots there or if he has a role in what happened there.


MR. EARNEST:  Josh, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief, and he often talks about how he is the one that is ultimately responsible for protecting the national security interests of the United States of America all around the globe.  There is no question that he relies on important advice from the leaders in our military, from leaders in our diplomatic corps, and from leaders in our intelligence community.  He values the relationship and advice that he gets from leaders among all of those important segments of our government, and in fact, it’s only because of the strong, sound advice that he has received from members of the intelligence community that we have had some success early on in our efforts to combat the threat from ISIL.
One of the things that we talked about earlier this summer is the efforts underway at the Pentagon to develop military options for the President, either in Iraq or in Syria.  And at that time, I talked about how it was important  -- or at that time, I talked about how military planners were relying on intelligence that was being collected and cultivated by our intelligence community to develop a set of targets on which the President could order military action. 
The early reviews, the early assessments of those military operations indicate that the strikes were impactful and effective.  That’s a testament, first and foremost, to the skill and courage of our men and women in uniform, but it would not have been possible without the tremendous ability of members of our intelligence community.



Q    And the President also discussed last night how the Islamic State group has become the more immediate threat even as the United States continues to wish to see Assad go.  I’m wondering if there is anything that the U.S. is actively doing at the moment to work to get Assad to go.


MR. EARNEST:  Well, certainly our efforts to build up the moderate elements of the Syrian opposition will have a very negative effect on the Assad regime’s ability to hold on to power; that as the opposition in Syria is built up, it will succeed in providing a legitimate counterweight to the Assad government, with the ultimate goal of a diplomatic resolution of that situation.  That’s also something the President discussed in the “60 Minutes” interview over the weekend.

There is not a military solution to the very grave problems that are plaguing Syria right now; that ultimately at the core is a political resolution as it relates to governing that country. And building up, fortifying and strengthening the capacity of moderate elements of the Syrian opposition will move us further in pursuit of that goal.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)