Wednesday, October 07, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THE CRANKY HITS THE FAN!

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


WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE CONSIDER CRANKY CLINTON A LIAR?

BECAUSE SHE CAN'T STOP LYING!


APPEARING ON A NBC PROGRAM THAT WASN'T SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, CRANKY INSISTED THIS WEEK:

There have been seven investigations led mostly by Republicans in the Congress. And they were nonpartisan and they reached conclusions that first of all I and nobody did anything wrong but there were changes we could make.


AS U.S.A. TODAY MAKES CLEAR, THIS IS PURE FANTASY, PURE SPIN, PURE HORSE S**T -- OR AS A LAUGHING BIG DAWG BILL CLINTON TOLD US, "PURE HILLARY S**T.  OH,
SHE'S GONNA' BE MAD WHEN SHE READS THAT!"

WE READ THE FORMER PRESIDENT U.S.A. TODAY'S CONCLUSION:

It may be Clinton’s opinion that no one did anything wrong, but the fact is independent, bipartisan reports found “poor performance” by senior department officials left the temporary U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi “particularly vulnerable” for attack.


"OH, THAT'S BAD FOR HILLY," HE LAUGHED, "BAD, BAD, BAD."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:




At Huffington Post, Libertarian Doug Bandow, at best, sports ignorance, and, at worst, flat out lies:


Bush continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up. In 2007 U.S. military adviser Emma Sky wrote of the U.S. military's frustration "by what they viewed as the schemes of Maliki and his inner circle to actively sabotage our efforts to draw Sunnis out of the insurgency." Al-Qaeda in Iraq survived, mutating into the Islamic State. The Bush administration then became one of the Islamic State's chief armorers when Iraqi soldiers fled before ISIS forces, abandoning their expensive, high-tech weapons which U.S. aircraft had to destroy last year.
Third, President Bush failed to win Iraqi approval of a continuing U.S. military presence and governing Status of Forces Agreement. With Americans ready to leave and Iraqis determined to move on, Bush planned an American exit. Retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno explained: "us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration. And that was always the plan, we had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty." Indeed, while Republican candidates now treat this departure as a failure--Jeb Bush proclaimed "that premature withdrawal was the fatal error"--attempting to stay would have been much worse. Washington would have had leverage only by threatening to withdraw its garrison, which the Maliki government desired. U.S. troops would have had little impact on Iraqi political developments, unless augmented and deployed in anti-insurgency operations, which Americans did not support. And a continuing military occupation would have provided radicals from every sectarian viewpoint with a target. 



First off, Odierno's comments conflict with others.  When a conflict occurs, you tend to go with the people who were actually in the room.  Odierno did not take part in the negotiations.  Brett McGurk, Condi Rice and others -- who were actually involved in the negotiations (this was a diplomatic effort, not a military one) -- have stated differently and they are correct.

Not only were they in the room but their remarks are also accurate based on the public record.

Bully Boy Bush negotiated the SOFA for three years.  Why three years?

It replaced the United Nations mandate.

That provided the legal cover for the US troops to be in Iraq.

The UN mandate had been a yearly agreement.

At the end of 2006, Nouri signed off on it for another year.

The Iraqi Parliament was furious.

Nouri promised he would get their approval next time.

At the end of 2007, he did not.

It was becoming a political issue.

For that reason, the agreement was a three year agreement.

(And don't forget that Barack tried to extend it.)

That's the reality.

Reality is hard for Doug Barlow so he lies, "Bush continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up."

The ruthless targeting?

You mean in 2010?

After Nouri's secret torture prisons were exposed?

But Barack, Joe Biden and Samantha Power demanded Nouri continue as prime minister?

Even after Nouri lost the election to Ayad Allawi?

Is that what liar Doug Bandow means?

Is that what the cheap, little hustler means?

I'm not seeing any world leaders with cleans hands when it comes to Iraq.


I also think it's less than honest when Barlow cites Emma Sky's book --  The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq. -- and portrays Odierno as supporting US troops leaving at the end of 2011 when Sky notes on page 311, "He believed twenty thousand or so US troops were needed to say in Iraq in post-2011 to train Iraqi security forces and to provide the psychological support to maintain a level of stability.  He envisaged a long-term strategic partnership between the two countries."

Doug Bandow will most likely get away with his lie because the American media has ignored Iraq and even should Emma Sky's book sell a million copies domestically -- and be hugely popular at public and school libraries -- it still won't reach most Americans.

Charlie Rose has never brought Emma Sky on his program to discuss the book.

In part because he can't handle the truths she tells and in part because he's so strongly anti-woman.

In Canada, she can get on TV and radio.  Let's again note her August appearance on Kevin Sylvester's This Sunday Edition (CBC).  Let's excerpt the section on the 2010 election -- when Barack's president and Nouri loses.  Wasn't Bully Boy Bush who "continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up" then.


Emma Sky: And that national election was a very closely contested election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate in that election.  They'd become convinced that politics was the way forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and not violence.  To people who had previously been insurgents, people who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that election.  And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki, lost by 2 seats.  And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and no sectarianism.  And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.

 Kevin Sylvester:  People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.

 Emma Sky:  Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus.  And Maliki refused to accept the results.  He just said, "It is not right."  He wanted a recount.  He tried to use de-Ba'athification to eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes that they had gained.  And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat.  And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system about what to do?  So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the government for thirty days.  And he didn't think Allawi would be able to do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that was his recommendation.

 Kevin Sylvester:   Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden -- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will support and then they do a complete switch around.  What happened?

 Emma Sky:  Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to be there.  He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general who'd been there for year after year after year.

 Kevin Sylvester:  Chris Hill.

 Emma Sky:  And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia strongman. Maliki's our man.  Maliki's our friend.  Maliki will give us a follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.'  So it looks as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation.  And the problem -- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki.  People were very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian, that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national election."  So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him.  So when Biden made clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this caused a huge upset with Iraqiya.  They began to fear that America was plotting with Iran in secret agreement.  So they moved further and further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with Maliki.  And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya, they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war through the 'surge.'  But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him.  And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of the country by the end of 2011.  So during this period, Americans got outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp because they'd guaranteed his second term.

 Kevin Sylvester:  Should-should the Obama administration been paying more attention?  Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something.  This is a guy you definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq.  How much of what has happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration?  Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it -- not Hillary.]  How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is at their feet?
Emma Sky:  Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010.  And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq.  She did appoint the ambassador [no, she did not] but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself.  You know, he understands identity more than many people.  He understands multiple identities and how identities can change.  He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British.  That's how things are."  So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war.  For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics -- the poisonous politics.  And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals.  He was determined he was never going to lose an election again.  So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process.  He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.]  He didn't pay them.  He subverted the judiciary.  And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!"  And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."  And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better. 





That's Barack, that's on Barack.

Again, I don't believe any leader's hands are blood free when it comes to Iraq.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isakson Statement on Committee Approval of Departm..."
"Operation Inherent Failure"
"Iraq snapshot"
"Forgotten Ramadi"
"Kat's Korner The triumphant return of Janet"
"Hejira"
"Hillary's enuich"
"State wants more e-mails from Hillary"
"Empire"
"Who authorized it?"
"What will liar Kevin Drum do now?"
"Hillary versus Joe"
"Minority Report"
"The reviews for Janet's Unbreakable"
"heroes reborn"
"Janet's back"
"Even her aides are liars"
"Janet"
"Janet's UNBREAKABLE"
"The one and only Janet Jackson"
"Thoughts on Janet Jackson"
"granny clinton has no real appeal"
"The Barack Economy"
"My favorite ballad"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY ON HILLARY!"
"He's not fond of Hillary"







    • Posted by at

    Sunday, October 04, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! BARRY ON HILLARY!

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

    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O, LIKE MANY AMERICANS, DOES NOT WANT TO SEE CRANKY CLINTON BECOME PRESIDENT.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O INSISTED, "I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE HILLARY CAN BECOME PRESIDENT.  HAVE YOU HEARD HER CACKLES?  AND IF SHE BECOMES PRESIDENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER ME, HOW SPECIAL WILL I BE?  I SHOULD NOT BE REPLACED EASILY.  I AM A VERY SPECIAL PERSON AND SHE'S SO RUN OF THE MILL."

    ASKED IF HE HAD ANY POLITICAL DIFFERENCES WITH HER, BARRY O REPLIED, "NOT REALLY.  WE BOTH LIKE STARTING WARS AND SEEING PEOPLE DIE.  THAT'S ONE THING I'LL GIVE HER, SHE'S GOT A REAL BLOOD THIRST."


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    Friday morning, we again noted The New Yorker report on prostitution in Iraq written by Rania Abouzeid and that CNN's Arwa Damon had Tweeted about it but that it was otherwise being ignored.



    From the article:






    In 2012, Iraq passed its first law specifically against human trafficking, but the law is routinely ignored, and sexual crimes, including rape and forced prostitution, are common, women’s-rights groups say. Statistics are hard to come by, but in 2011, according to the latest Ministry of Planning report, a survey found that more than nine per cent of respondents between the ages of fifteen and fifty-four said they had been subjected to sexual violence. The real number is likely much higher, given the shame attached to reporting such crimes in a society where a family’s honor is often tied to the chastity of its women. The victims of these crimes are often considered outcasts and can be killed for “dishonoring” their family or their community.


    Since 2006, Layla, a rape victim and former prostitute, has been secretly mapping Iraq’s underworld of sex trafficking and prostitution. Through her network of contacts in the sex trade, she gathers information about who is selling whom and for how much, where the victims are from, and where they are prostituted and trafficked. She passes the information, through intermediaries, to Iraqi authorities, who usually fail to act on it. Still, her work has helped to convict several pimps, including some who kidnapped children. That Saturday night, I accompanied Layla and Mohammad on a tour of some of the places that she investigates, on the condition that I change her name, minimize details that might identify her, and not name her intermediaries.



    Friday on PRI's The World, Carol Hills spoke with Raina Abouzeid about her report.  Excerpt.


    Rania Abouzeid:  But she's told me on more than one occasion that she sees this as her life's cause that she is absolutely determined regardless of the personal violence that she is often threatened with, because it is a dangerous job to sort of move undercover and pretend that you're a pimp or that you're a retired pimp in her case to get access to these brothels and to get into these nightclubs and to have the kind of relationships that she has with pimps and prostitutes.  But she's nonetheless absolutely devoted to this cause.

     Carol Hills:  You accompanied her as she tried to get information and she was sort of under cover as a pimp herself in order to get information.  What did you observe her do in order to get information?

    Rania Abouzeid:  One of the reasons she can do this was because she was in the trade many years ago.  She has those sort of connections and she mines those connections.  So she's a known quantity if you like in this underworld in Iraq.  And she, uh, she taps into those connections and she uses them to expand her network and it also gives her a kind of street cred, if you like, with these people that she's dealing with.

     Carol Hills:  Can you give a couple of examples of the kind of women or girls that are finding themselves in the sex trade.

     Rania Abouzeid:  Well it's mainly women and girls who don't have the support of their families -- either because they're fleeing from their families because of some sort of domestic abuse or they've been displaced and their usual family network isn't around them so they're -- so they're in an alien environment, if you like. And you know what one of the young ladies in my piece found herself in a very rough neighborhood because it was cheaper and it didn't take long for pimps and their women in this trade -- for one of these pimps to find her and to offer her free shelter, free food, a sense of stability and that's how she was lured into this trade.

     Carol Hills:  You just mentioned that many of the pimps are women and that really surprised me.  How-how does that happen?  It's so different from -- at least our image -- of how prostitution and the sex trade operate.

     Rania Abouzeid:  Yes, it's a very different model to the sort of western stereotype of the pimp -- the male pimp -- who's sort of controls the women.  In Iraq, actually in much of the developing world, these are criminal networks that are run by women.  But there are men behind them.  There's quite a tangled web of men behind them and corrupt police and militia men in the case of Iraq.
    Carol Hills:  Is the current Iraqi government doing anything about this?
    Rania Abouzeid:  Well in August of this year, the Women's Affairs Ministry which was always short of money anyhow was closed down as part of downsizing.  And that was one body that was supposed to sort of advocate for women's affairs.  And it was shut down.



    And it was shut down.

    As we noted September 10th, "What 'reform' under Haider means thus far is that quotas are going and gone -- meaning minority populations will not be represented or have a seat at the table.  In addition, shutting down the Ministry of Women's Affairs -- not a budget concern since it never had a real budget -- means that there will not be bodies in the government to track the treatment (or mistreatment) of certain segments."


    Why is it that when Haider al-Abadi falsely sold his announced moves as 'reform' no one wanted to call them out -- no one in the press.  They wanted to pretend that closing down an underfunded ministry would, in fact, address corruption.


    Instead, it leaves a segment of the population without any real resources.


    And where were our brave defenders of women's rights in the United States?

    I don't want to hear any two-faced women's 'leader' announce yet again: "Human rights are women's rights."

    I don't want to hear that or anything else if they were no where to be found when Haider al-Abadi was trying to dismantle the Ministry of Women's Affairs.


    Hillary Clinton, for example, was more than happy to vote (2002) to destroy Iraq and to continue to support the illegal war until it became a problem in 2007 as she was seeking the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination.


    Today, she's again seeking that nomination but she has nothing to say about Iraqi women.

    The notion that some fluff in a badly (ghost)written book means she no longer has to answer for Iraq is one pimped by the whores who want to ignore what a War Hawk Hillary is.

    Remember, she can talk business opportunities brought about by the destruction of Iraq, she just can't address the problems facing the Iraqi people.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Planned Parenthood needs to get its act together"
    "The only game in town"
    "Disgusting"
    "How To Get Away With Boredom"
    "Sequestration"
    "Again: Where are the jobs?"
    "The Martian"
    "Loser of the week"
    "proof shonda rhimes doesn't know what she's doing"
    "Dolly"
    "David Walsh has no taste"
    "She's late, she's late for a very important date"
    "Does anyone like Hillary?"
    "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY WOULD KILL CAM, MITCH AND LILY!"
    "Cranky wants to kill"




    • Posted by at

    Thursday, October 01, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY WOULD KILL CAM, MITCH AND LILY!

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

    CRANKY CLINTON WANTS GAYS AND LESBIANS TO VOTE FOR HER, SHE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE THEIR FAMILIES.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS AND ASKED WHAT SHE WOULD DO ABOUT THE FAMILY CAM, MITCHELL AND LILY ON "MODERN FAMILY," CRANKY REPLIED, "I WOULD DEPLOY A PREDATOR DRONE TO KILL THEM.  I WOULD KILL LILY FIRST BECAUSE SHE'S A CHILD AND SHE WAS PROBABLY DAMAGED THE MOST.  SO IT WOULD BE GRACE AND MERCY.  THEN I'D GO AFTER MITCH BECAUSE HE'S A RED HEAD AND, WELL, THAT SAYS IT ALL.  I'D SAVE CAM FOR LAST SO HE COULD SUFFER THROUGH THE DEATHS OF THE OTHER TWO.  WOW, THIS IS FUN, LIKE WHEN I DID MY INTERVIEW WITH LENA DUNHAM.  YOU KNOW WHY I DID THAT, RIGHT?  SITTING NEXT TO HER MADE ME LOOK SO PRETTY BY COMPARISON."



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:


    As part of Haider al-Abadi's continued visit to the United States, the prime minister of Iraq sat down with Margaret Warner (PBS' The NewsHour -- link is text, audio and video) for an interview.  Excerpt.
    MARGARET WARNER: Another thing, of course, that happened over the last few days was news that Iraq had entered an intelligence pact with Russia and Iran and Syria to share intelligence about ISIS. Why did you join that?
    HAIDER AL-ABADI: ISIL is an international terrorist organization. As far as the intelligence is concerned, we can only gather information about ISIL inside Iraq.
    We need the help of other countries. Russia now considers ISIL as a national threat to them. It is a national threat to Syria. And, of course, it is a threat to Iran as well. Now, to share this intelligence with these countries is going to help us. I will do whatever it takes to protect the Iraqi people.
    And there are many terrorist networks all over the world and fighters coming across different countries, to Syria, to Iraq. I need the help of that intelligence, as well as the intelligence of the international coalition, which is…

     (CROSSTALK)
    MARGARET WARNER: But doesn’t most of your intelligence in fact come from the Americans? And are you worried that the U.S. will become more wary and less forthcoming sharing intelligence with you if they know it also goes to Iran and Russia and Syria?
    HAIDER AL-ABADI: No, we will be careful not to share this information which comes from other parties with another party.




    Some have little faith in Haider al-Abadi's ability to self-censor.  It was on another US trip, for instance, when he created an international incident by declaring he had intel about planned attacks on American targets including the NYC subway system.



    It was a year ago when Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Allen (Reuters) reported:



    Iraq has "credible" intelligence that Islamic State militants plan to attack subway systems in Paris and the United States, the prime minister said on Thursday, but U.S. and French officials said they had no evidence to back up his claims.
    Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's comments were met with surprise by security, intelligence and transit officials in both countries. New York's leaders scrambled to ride the subway to reassure the public that the nation's largest city was safe.




    As his heavily reported claims were rebuked by both US and French government officials, Haider was left standing alone on the world stage and returned to Iraq an object of both ridicule and scorn.



    The man who can't trust his own mouth now says he can handle top secret intelligence and not pass it on to Russia?



    Noting that Iraq has long allowed Russia to fly over the country, in Iraq air space, David L. Phillips points out at CNBC:


     Iraq's Shiite-led government appears to be more loyal to Iran than the United States. Iran's Quds Force is fighting alongside Shiite militias against the Islamic State in Anbar and other western provinces of Iraq. Iran's political support and security assistance are critical for the survival of Iraq Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's government. 
    Iraq's Shiite-led government appears to be more loyal to Iran than the United States. Iran's Quds Force is fighting alongside Shiite militias against the Islamic State in Anbar and other western provinces of Iraq. Iran's political support and security assistance are critical for the survival of Iraq Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's government.
      Further demonstration of Iraq's non-cooperation with the United States surfaced over the weekend: Iraq has reached an understanding with Russia, Iran and Syria to share intelligence about the Islamic State. Iraqi officials kept Washington in the dark during negotiations.

    The Obama administration should be able to influence the government of Iraq. Washington supported Abadi's bid to become prime minister. The Pentagon has an extensive equip-and-train program bolstering the Iraqi Security Forces. Between 2005 and 2013, the U.S. spent $25 billion on security assistance to Iraq. U.S.troops were indispensable in toppling Saddam Hussein, which created conditions for Shiites to ascend in Iraq.   




    Should be able to but apparently the puppet pulls the strings.


    Operation Inherent Failure we dubbed it.


    And the final grades keep rolling in.


    Take this week's [PDF format warning] Foreign Fighter Task Force report from the House Homeland Security Committee.


     The report explains:
    One jihadist group in particular saw an opening.  The Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), a successor organization to al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), called for sectarian war and the creation of a regional Islamic state.  AQI was a terrorist group whose leadership had pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden in 2004 and which led an insurgency against U.S. forces in the country.  After the group's leader Abud Musab al-Zarqai was killed in a 2006 U.S. airstrike, it rebranded as ISL.  The terror outfit was weakened by the surge of U.S. troops into Iraq, the Anbar awakening, and later the death of its two top leaders in 2010.  With the eventual withdrawal of American forces, however, ISI took advantage of the security vacuum and Sunni disenfranchisement with the central government to ramp up attacks.  Its new leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, oversaw the escalation in violence.
    In April 2013, al-Baghdadi declared the creation of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (hereafter, ISIS).  He sought to merge his forces with those of al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, but al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahirl rejected the merger, creating a schism between the groups.  Nevertheless, ISIS expanded its operations in northern and eastern Syria, claiming territory and creating tension with other rebel factions.  The momentum allowed ISIS to attract additional resources, especially more foreign fighters.
    On New Year's Day 2014, ISIS convoys stormed Falluja and Ramadi, Iraqi cities which only a few years earlier had been liberated by U.S. forces.  The Iraqi army crumbled as the fighters arrived in convoys of 70-100 trucks, armed with heavy weapons and anti-aircraft guns.  The group's growing success resonated with Islamist radicals across social media.  ISIS launched another major offensive in June 2014, capturing Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, and taking control of others towns as it pushed south toward Baghdad.



    Further in, the report offers this stark assessment:



     The United States conducted its first series of coordinated airstrikes against ISIS in August 2014.  The strikes focused initially on curbing ISIS advances in nothern Iraq and protecting religious minorities but eventually shifted to supporting offensive operations against the militant group in both Iraq and its Syrian territory.  In September, President Obama declared the aim of degrading and ultimately destroying the group.  The United States has since conducted more than 5,000 airstrikes against ISIS.
    Airstrikes, however, do not appear to have kept aspiring foreign fighters away.  When the strikes began, counterterrorism officials estimated the total number of extremists was around 15,000.  However, fighters continued to enter Syria at a rate of 1,000 per month.  In December 2014, intelligence officials pegged the total at more than 18,000 and by February 2015 it surpassed 20,000.  Today the figure stands at 25,000-plus foreign fighters, more than triple the number from just a year ago.  The majority of these fighters still come from the Middle East and North Africa, with Tunisia as the most significant source country.  But the total also includes 4,500 Westerners and more than 250 Americans, figures which have surged since 2014.
    Indeed, foreign fighters have helped ISIS to remain strong.  Nearly 10,000 of the group's foot soldiers have been killed by airstrikes, but they have been replaced by new foreign and domestic fighters almost as quickly as they are taken off the battlefield.  There has been "no meaningful degradition in their numbers," according to one defense official, as estimates place ISIS's total fighting force at 20-30,000 -- the same as it was last fall.



    Operation Inherent Failure continues on, doing the same thing with no real results.


    Some call it a 'plan,' some call it stupidity.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Turkish hostages released"
    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Col Bernie San..."
    "The Intel Chain"
    "Hejira"
    "Isakson Statement on VA Authorization Legislation"
    "DHS Is Not the Boss of My Library (Chuck McAndrew)."
    "Tweet of the day"
    "Healing what?"
    "That backstabber Hillary Clinton "
    "Never mind"
    "Punishing the only success"
    "Dash on Minority Report"
    "shameful Hillary"
    "The failure Haider al-Abadi"
    "Operation Inherent Failure"
    "Music"
    "Bernie's problems"
    "How bad is it for Hillary"
    "Bill, shut up, seriously"
    "Hillary is just so stupid"
    "Empire got some truth out"
    "How long does your laptop last?"
    "Minority Report"
    "the bad news"
    "Why would anyone see The Martian?"


     
     
     
     
     
    "THIS JUST IN! SHE'S CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!"
    "Can Hillary tell the truth?"
     
     
     
     
     
    Posted by at

    Friday, September 25, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! SHE'S CAUGHT LYING AGAIN!

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

    CRANKY GOT CAUGHT LYING AGAIN.

    AGAIN.

    SHE SAID SHE TURNED OVER ALL OF HER WORK E-MAILS.

    TURNS OUT SHE LIED.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY EXPRESSED SURPRISE, "YOU MEAN DAVID PETRAEUS IS NOT MY MOTHER?  I HONESTLY THOUGHT HE WAS.  I THOUGHT THOSE WERE PERSONAL E-MAILS BETWEEN ME AND MY MOTHER.  LIVE AND LEARN."






    Starting with a Tweet.



    1. 2 hours ago
      It's revealing that this Australian govt thinks the answer to 's problems is (more) planes and bombs. That's been tried before, people!
      9:40 PM - 24 Sep 2015 · Details



    • It's revealing that any US government can only think of  "(more) planes and bombs."

    US President Barack Obama is only the latest American fool to preach "(more) planes and bombs."

    And despite the lack of success for over a year now, he continues to advocate it.

    And others, like the Australian government, rush to join in on the deadly nonsense.

    The stupidity only increases collectively and apparently in unison.


    The rush to join the death club clouds reason and even the abilities of basic observation.


    As RT noted this week, "Over 53,000 flights, 6700 strikes, and nearly $4 billion dollars later, Operation Inherent Resolve has yet to achieve any of its objectives."


    But the desire to join the death club is too powerful to be let facts get in the way.



    Yesterday, the US Defense Dept boasted:

    Bomber, fighter, fighter-attack, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 16 airstrikes in Iraq, coordinated with the Iraqi government:
    -- Near Huwayjah, an airstrike destroyed 16 ISIL fighting positions.
    -- Near Habbaniyah, an airstrike destroyed two ISIL anti-air artillery pieces.
    -- Near Kirkuk, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
    -- Near Mosul, six airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL vehicle bomb-making facilities, an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL cache, an ISIL bunker, and suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL light machine gun, and two ISIL mortar positions.
    -- Near Ramadi, three airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroyed two ISIL buildings, an ISIL excavator, and three ISIL mobility obstacles.
    -- Near Sinjar, three airstrikes struck separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed and ISIL light machine gun and six ISIL fighting positions.
    -- Near Tal Afar, one airstrike suppressed ISIL mortar fire.

    Officials also announced a previously unreported Sept. 10 airstrike near Tal Afar, Iraq, which struck an ISIL tactical unit and resulted in a destroyed vehicle and the death of a senior ISIL leader.

    They boasted of that (and of bombings on Syria) and:
    The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project terror and conduct operations, officials said.
    Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq include the United States, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the United States, Bahrain, Canada, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

    It was nice of them to provide a listing of all the delusional parties who shouldn't be allowed access to a water gun, let alone a bomb.

    But each day, they boast of their latest round of bombings when they should be embarrassed.


    Not only is it barbaric, but it's accomplished nothing.

    Operation Inherent Failure, led by Barack Obama.

    Is that redundant?

    It feels redundant.


    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


    Posted by at

    THIS JUST IN! KEVIN DRUM LOVE SLAVE!

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




    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CASTRATO KEVIN RESPONDED, "MISTRESS DOES NOT LET ME SPEAK TO STRANGERS.  MISTRESS KEEPS ME CONFINED TO THE DUNGEON.  I SERVE MY MISTRESS."




    Today, the State Dept's Deputy Sex Addict Brett McGurk Tweeted:






  • 5 hours ago
    Today with ,  confirmed $75M for acute needs of Iraqi IDPs & named a special coordinator for 's minorities. 
    11 retweets 15 favorites




    • And to think, all it took was a face-to-face with the Pope for US President Barack Obama to finally recognize the refugee crisis other countries have been noting for weeks.

    Brett's giddy Barack named a special coordinator for Iraq's minorities?

    Apparently, Brett'll use any excuse to whip it out (but didn't we already know that).

    Otherwise, why not grasp that this "special coordinator" will be about as effective as the ridiculous Daniel Fried who was John Kerry's "Special Advisor on Camp Ashraf" from November 2011 until January 2013 -- and accomplished nothing.


    Nothing.


    If you're in doubt, this week former US House Rep Patrick Kennedy penned a column which included:


    My uncle, President John F. Kennedy, managed to negotiate a nuclear deal with a hostile adversary (the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, signed with the Soviet Union in August 1963) while actively supporting, in both rhetoric and to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in funding, the cause of democracy in Eastern bloc countries. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan took the same approach with the USSR by signing the INF Treaty while redoubling the U.S. commitment to democracy behind the Iron Curtain. This strategy kept faith with America's deepest-held values and most vital interests. Sadly, today our government has not pursued a similar course with respect to Iran.
    While my former colleagues in Congress have now given President Barack Obama the votes he needs for a nuclear deal, what's been equally worrisome has been the near total abdication of America's moral authority on promoting democracy and human rights in Iran, both of which were under assault even during the nuclear talks, when we had maximum leverage.
    [. . .]
    The U.S. can start by taking prompt action to protect thousands of Iranian dissidents who languish like sitting ducks in an Iraqi camp we swore to protect but didn't, for fear of alienating the regime from the negotiating table. With the deal done, one would think the Obama administration now has the leverage to save these souls who cast their lot with a secular, democratic, non-nuclear Iran. After years of ambushes and massacres at the hands of Iran-supported forces, these brave men and women should be protected from further attacks at the ironically named Camp Liberty. We must make clear to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi that he is responsible for the protection of these Iranian dissidents, and they must be brought to the safety of third-party nations.

    The deal is done, but America's interests and values endure. We must now use the imminent passage of the nuclear pact to renew America's unique commitment to the ideal of democracy and human rights in Iran and stand with the Iranian people and not their oppressors.



    For approximately 14 months, Fried held a role that tasked him with relocating less than 4,000 people.


    And he failed.


    He failed and no one cared and the press didn't even muster a yawn.



    For those who've boarded the plane late, here's an overview on the Ashraf community.  As of September 2013, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty.  All remaining members of the community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).  Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."  They were attacked again September 1st.   Adam Schreck (AP) reported that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.  It was during that attack that the 7 hostages were taken.

    The seven remain missing -- though John Kerry and Brett McGurk have insisted to Congress that they know where the 7 are -- and the Ashraf community still needs homes outside of Iraq.


    So Pope Francis comes to the US and suddenly Barack finds another job to create where an advisor will do nothing and accomplish nothing?

    What a proud moment for us all.




    Barack delivered empty words June 19, 2014 when he insisted the only answer for Iraq was a political solution.

    There's no political solution all this time later.



    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



    Posted by at

    Wednesday, September 23, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CALLS IT A WIN!

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

    CRANKY CLINTON'S BEEN CAUGHT WITH HER PANTSUIT DOWN AS THE STATE DEPT. SAYS 'UH-UH, LADY, THAT'S NOT HOW IT HAPPENED!' AND HER LATEST LIE ABOUT HER E-MAIL SCANDAL IS REVEALED. 

    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY REFUSED TO RESPOND TO THAT OR TO THE REPORTS THAT SHE TOLD FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O TO "CALL OFF THE F**KING DOGS!"


    INSTEAD, SHE INSISTED SHE WANTED TO STAY "UP AND HAPPY AND POSITIVE.  FOR EXAMPLE, I JUST FINISHED A CAMPAIGN STOP IN DALLAS AND, UNLIKE MY 2008 CAMPAIGN VISIT, NO POLICE WERE INJURED OR KILLED WHILE PROVIDING ME WITH SAFETY.  NOT A SINGLE ONE."




    Sarah Westwood (Washington Examiner) speaks with whistle-blower retired Army Sgt 1st Class William Kotel:


    Kotel, who was noncommissioned officer in charge of the Joint Targets Enterprise, said warnings about imminent terror attacks in Iraq were required to be routed through a maze of Pentagon channels, a process that could take weeks, instead of communicated directly with military units in harm's way.
    He said the policy of substituting economic or environmental information for terror-related intelligence in reports was never made explicit by Central Command's leadership, but that he and his colleagues had "implied orders" not to report facts on the ground in Iraq.

    The problem, Kotel said, is not necessarily that final reports were being edited for political reasons. Instead, it's that key intelligence wasn't allowed in those reports in the first place.


    Reports of cooked intel has plagued the White House for weeks now.  Last Wednesday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing (covered in the Thursday and Friday snapshots) and the topic was repeatedly raised with one of the witnesses, Gen Lloyd Austin.  Two examples, first Committee Chair John McCain:


    Chair John McCain: Indeed this Committee is disturbed by recent whistle-blower allegations that officials at Central Command skewed intelligence assessments to paint an overly positive picture of conditions on the ground.  We are currently investigations these allegations which we take with the upmost seriousness.  The Department of Defense should as well.  And if true, those responsible must be held accountable.



    Second, Senator Clair McCaskill:



    Senator Claire McCaskill: I understand from your testimony, Gen Austin, that you can't comment on the IG investigation this accusation that people are putting pressure on intelligence analysts to change the tenor of their reports.  It's a serious allegation that strikes at the core of our government in terms of our ability to oversee and make decisions around the use of our military. I want to say, at the end of this investigation, when you can discuss it, I just want to put on the record that I, for one, am going to be watching very carefully about any potential retaliation against any of the men or women that may have come forward with allegations.  It is incredibly important that whistle-blowers be protected in this space and -- depending upon what the investigation finds -- I understand that maybe there are other factors that I am not aware of -- but I just want to put on the record that I will be paying very close attention to how these whistle-blowers are treated in the aftermath of this investigation.



    In one of the strongest pieces on the issue, last week John R. Schindler (New York Observer) offered:


    It’s happening again. A White House fumbling with the violent mess of Iraq finds itself surrounded by mounting accusations that it’s played dirty games with intelligence. A Pentagon facing charges that its analysts have skewed assessments on Iraq to tell top policymakers what they want to hear, rather than what is really happening in that troubled country.
    If this sounds terribly familiar, it should. Only a dozen years after the George W. Bush White House was buffeted by allegations that it had “cherry-picked” intelligence to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama is facing similar accusations. Intelligence Community analysts alleged that, in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, they were pressured to exaggerate Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, analysts claim that they have been pushed to present Obama’s war against the Islamic State as more successful than it really is.


    Earlier this month Shane Harris and Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) reported:

    More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.
    The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

    Spencer Ackerman (Guardian) reported September 11th:

    Barack Obama’s intelligence chief is said to be in frequent and unusual contact with a military intelligence officer at the center of a growing scandal over rosy portrayals of the war against the Islamic State, the Guardian has learned.
    James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, is said to talk nearly every day with the head of US Central Command’s intelligence wing, Army Major General Steven Grove – “which is highly, highly unusual”, according to a former intelligence official.
    Grove is said to be implicated in a Pentagon inquiry into manipulated war intelligence.

    In communications, Clapper, who is far more senior than Grove, is said to tell Grove how the war looks from his vantage point, and question Grove about Central Command’s assessments. Such a situation could place inherent pressure on a subordinate, sources said.



    While some members of Congress have expressed outrage over the possibility that the intel was being cooked, others seem to have their heads so far up their ass that they can't see daylight.  Tim Mak (Daily Beast) quoted Senator Tim Kaine insisting, "Don’t you see why we need to do an authorization for this war? It’s spreading, it’s mutating. There’s new theaters of war that are engaged. If what [the whistleblowers are] saying is right, they’re saying that it’s a more complicated, protracted, long-term war than maybe people were led to think. If that’s the case, we ought to be doing an authorization.”

    Kaine is like a deranged hobbyist these days trying to connect everything to his personal wants.

    He's wanted an authorization for Barack's latest wave in the never-ending Iraq War.

    So this month, in the face of cooked intel, Kaine is now arguing this is proof that Congress needs to authorize Barck's war -- because "it's mutating" -- for that reason it needs to be authorized?

    Maybe Kaine's attempting to insist that an authorization would contain and prevent mutation?

    If so, he's an idiot because that's never happened before and it wouldn't have happened now.

    The White House -- whomever occupies it -- does whatever it wants with Congress either silent or carping.  Congress refuses to collectively hold the White House responsible for war and the Supreme Court will never make a ruling on an ongoing war (because they have no power to enforce a decision that went against the White House).


    RT, in a report noting the false statements of US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry insisting 'success' in the war on the Islamic State, reminds, "Over 53,000 flights, 6700 strikes, and nearly $4 billion dollars later, Operation Inherent Resolve has yet to achieve any of its objectives."

    Monday, Shane Harris and Nancy Youssef reported on some of what was being cooked:

    Senior intelligence officials at the U.S. military’s Central Command demanded significant alterations to analysts’ reports that questioned whether airstrikes against the so-called Islamic State widely known as ISIS were damaging the group’s finances and its ability to launch attacks. But reports that showed the group being weakened by the U.S.-led air campaign received comparatively little scrutiny, The Daily Beast has learned.
    Senior CENTCOM intelligence officials who reviewed the critical reports sent them back to the analysts and ordered them to write new versions that included more footnotes and details to support their assessments, according to two officials familiar with a complaint levied by more than 50 analysts about intelligence manipulation by CENTCOM higher-ups.

    In some cases, analysts were also urged to state that killing particular ISIS leaders and key officials would diminish the group and lead to its collapse. Many analysts, however, didn’t believe that simply taking out top ISIS leaders would have an enduring effect on overall operations.





    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"

    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)