Thursday, August 14, 2014

THIS JUST IN! THEY MAKE NICE!

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


IF THERE'S ANYTHING SADDER THAN HILLARY C ATTACKING BARRY O ON FOREIGN POLICY -- WAR HAWKS PECKING OVER THE SAME WORM -- IT'S THEIR REFUSAL TO STAND BY THEIR POSITIONS.


BECAUSE IN THE END THEIR BIGGEST BEEF IS NEVER WITH ONE ANOTHER.  NO, THEIR BIGGEST BEEF IS WITH THE AMERICAN VOTERS.





Former Governor of New Mexico and 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee Gary Johnson Tweeted the following today:

  • 3h
    WSJ: "U.S. Begins to Assess Iraq Rescue Strategy". Obama insists we are not going back to war, but how many bombs & troops = war?? 
    Expand


    • Let's turn to the political in Iraq.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) maintains Iraq's prime minister-designate Haider al-Abadi is Nouri al-Maliki circa 2006.


    Comically, he does that as Antiwar.com is in the midst of a fund raiser boasting they're always right.

    I'm not always right.  I'm often wrong.

    But I wasn't wrong about Nouri.

    And, unlike Jason Ditz, I didn't giggle on air and agree with Scott Horton about how wonderful Nouri was.

    Jason Ditz has a lot of nerve.  I've been kind but we all know I forget nothing.

    I can quote from those chats with Horton -- where Scott and Jason made like the Gabby Gabors enthralled with Nouri.

    Is Haider the same?

    No.

    Is he good or bad, saint or sinner?  I already said this week that we don't know.

    But what we know is that Nouri's selling point for the American government was chiefly his paranoia which, it was thought, would make him easily manipulated.

    I knew about the paranoia and we wrote about it here, what, three or four years before WikiLeaks confirmed what we were saying?

    I'm not hitting anyone up for their piggy banks.

    I am saying that if you have the nerve, before the prime minister-designate has done anything, to insist he's another Nouri, you damn well better have called out Nouri.

    Or you can sit your tired ass down.

    This is my last nice, Jason Ditz.  

    I'm not in the mood.

    Back to today's State Dept press briefing:


    QUESTION: In Iraq, please. Today Prime Minister al-Maliki said he would not step down from his post until the Iraqi judiciary rules on whether or not his constitutional challenge to the process should go forward or not. I’m wondering if you all have any idea of how long this process might take as it speaks to some concerns people have raised about whether he will try to run out the clock on the 30 days he now – that designate al-Abadi has.

    Also I’m wondering if you were able to get an answer to my question yesterday as to what level of confidence does the U.S. have in the Iraqi judiciary system.

    MS. HARF: A couple issues, and then we’ll – I’m sure you’ll have follow-ups. The comments made by the prime minister today were similar to ones he’s made in recent days, quite frankly. And as I said yesterday, with all political systems there will be differences with how certain processes unfold. We never expected this to be completely seamless, but the United States firmly rejects any effort to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial processes.

    And then look, I don’t want to get ahead of the constitutional process that’s underway. We just began the 30-day time clock for the Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi to form a new government. They are moving along with that process. So we will watch day by day as that plays out, but Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi is moving forward as part of this process, and that’s what we’ll be focused on in the coming days.

    QUESTION: So you don’t believe this court challenge that Maliki is posing is going to be slowing that 30-day clock in any way?

    MS. HARF: Well, look, the prime minister-designate is the one who is in charge of what happens during the 30-day clock, and he’s working actively towards that. And again, we would reject any efforts by anyone to use the judicial processes to manipulate or coerce the outcomes here. But there is a separate process and it’s the constitutional one, and that’s moving forward.

    QUESTION: How is it that the designate has control of the clock when Maliki is still the prime minister?

    MS. HARF: Well, he has control of the clock. What I meant was the progress that can be made in the 30 days to form a new government is in the hands of the prime minister-designate, who has the support, as I said over the last few days. He was nominated by the Shiite bloc, including many members of Prime Minister Maliki’s own party.

    So we’ve seen these kind of comments from the current prime minister before, but separate from those comments there is a process under the constitution that is moving forward. And we expect that to move forward and we will continue watching what happens in the coming days.

    QUESTION: Do you have any expectations of how long this court appeal will last?

    MS. HARF: I don’t have any guess on that.

    QUESTION: May I just follow up on that? I mean, his words were very critical of the United States, today – Maliki’s speech. He basically said that you espouse democratic values but you go ahead and sabotage the democratic process. What do you have to say to that?

    MS. HARF: Well, the Iraqis have their democratic process that’s underway right now, and that process has led to a new prime minister-designate being named by the current prime minister’s own bloc. So the process is playing out how it should. Again, we knew this would not be without complication. Nothing ever is – certainly not here in Iraqi politics. But their own democratically, constitutionally outlined process has been ongoing and that’s what’s happening right now.

    QUESTION: I know that you warned against manipulating whatever legal process in the courts or whatever to sow divisions and so on in Iraq. Has anyone talked to the prime minister personally to say refrain from doing that because you’re driving the country further into the abyss?

    MS. HARF: We’ve certainly had conversations with a range of leaders, including Prime Minister Maliki, emphasizing, Said, that this is a key, critical time in Iraq on the security front, on the political front – they are very closely intertwined – and that nobody should do anything to prevent the progress that’s laid out under the constitution from taking place and from moving forward. Nobody should.

    QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

    MS. HARF: We’ve certainly had those conversations.

    QUESTION: Okay. Now, as we – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, they all welcome the prime minister-designate Haider Al-Abadi, but Maliki still has some support within the Shiites. He has some support within some, like, militant type of militias and so on. Are you concerned that he actually might resort to violence?

    MS. HARF: I don’t want to venture to guess on that hypothetical, Said. There’s a process in place and that process is moving forward. What’s key here is that the President asked the prime minister-designate to name a government. This was the designate that his own bloc, Prime Minister Maliki’s own bloc selected. So I think that should speak very clearly about the support that Prime Minister-designate al-Abadi has. And, again, the process is moving forward.


    We'll note this Tweet.
    3m

    Twenty eight women (prostitutes) killed in Iraq! A reminder of Iranian regime when prostitutes were burned to die! 




    Expand 



    I have no idea why a woman would do that to other women.

    28 women were killed.  By thugs.

    The thugs call them whores.

    And we repeat that?

    That's how we show sympathy for these women who were killed?

    The Tweeter's never been there and knows nothing.

    'A press report said it!' 

    Oh, okay then.  Press report are never wrong, right?

    It would be something wonderful if we could see people rejecting an urge to insult the dead.  (I am not attacking women who engage in sex work.  I am noting that prostitute is a huge pejorative in Iraq and dead women who can't defend themselves shouldn't have prostitute tied around their dead necks solely because a group of men -- who killed them -- have labeled them whores.)

    I'm not interested in running down violence.  Monday night, I noted a death and offered Tuesday might be the last snapshot.  The friend I dictated it too wisely pulled that.  But a friend died this week and it really makes me question the point of online life.


    This week saw the passing of actors Robin Williams and Lauren Bacall.  (I was referring to Robin in the previous paragraph.)  TCM has a video clip entitled "Lauren Bacall -- (TCM Remembers) 1924-2014."  PBS' The NewsHour remembers her here.

    Maria noted her passing in "The Walker," Ann in "Remembering Lauren Bacall," Stan with "Bacall," Elaine with "The great star Lauren Bacall," Ruth with "Lauren Bacall," Trina with "Lauren Bacall -- one of a kind," Betty with "Lauren" and Kat with "The wrong people keep dying."  Robin's passing was noted in Mike's "Robin starred in so much of our childhood," Rebecca's "robin" and Marcia's "Iraq and Robin Williams." In addition, Robin was noted in a statement the Pentagon released earlier this week:




    August 11, 2014

    Statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on the Passing of Robin Williams


    The entire Department of Defense community mourns the loss of Robin Williams. Robin was a gifted actor and comedian, but he was also a true friend and supporter of our troops. From entertaining thousands of service men and women in war zones, to his philanthropy that helped veterans struggling with hidden wounds of war, he was a loyal and compassionate advocate for all who serve this nation in uniform. He will be dearly missed by the men and women of DoD - so many of whom were personally touched by his humor and generosity.





    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq"
    Posted by at

    Wednesday, August 13, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! LIPS FLAP BUT NOTHING COMES OUT!


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


    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS STILL DEALING WITH FALL OUT FROM HIS WEEKEND CLAIM THAT HE WASN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR U.S. TROOPS LEAVING IRAQ.

    AS THE RUMBLE GROWS, BARRY O'S FOLLOWERS -- ALL THREE OF THEM -- TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "NOTHING THE O DOES IS HIS FAULT -- WHETHER HE DOES IT OR NOT.  THE O IS JUST THE O."


    But when he was pressed at a press conference on why U.S. troops were not already in Iraq and, by implication, why the United States had stood back as the situation deteriorated, the President economized with the truth. He insisted that it was "not my decision" to withdraw troops.
    Yet he ran for office on quitting Iraq in 2008, then celebrated having done so in 2012, even as -- as Patrick Brennan argues in National Review -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was prepared to negotiate on maintaining a U.S. presence. "Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war," he writes. "Having a very small American force wasn't worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting  their presence."
    In short, Obama's claim that withdrawal from Iraq was forced upon him is hard to believe. He was elected and re-elected as the anti-Iraq war president (it's why he deserves some credit for having the courage to return to the country today).






    We will note this:

    Having said all that, if in fact the Iraqi government behaved the way it did over the last five, six years, where it failed to pass legislation that would reincorporate Sunnis and give them a sense of ownership; if it had targeted certain Sunni leaders and jailed them; if it had alienated some of the Sunni tribes that we had brought back in during the so-called Awakening that helped us turn the tide in 2006 -- if they had done all those things and we had had troops there, the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable. And however many troops we had, we would have to now be reinforcing, I’d have to be protecting them, and we’d have a much bigger job. And probably, we would end up having to go up again in terms of the number of grounds troops to make sure that those forces were not vulnerable.


    That qualifies as truth.  Nouri has caused the problems and done so over many, many years.  It's a reality many need to face. In those remarks, some note the frustration Barack had with Nouri al-Maliki but few are noting the reality in the remarks.  I'm especially surprised that Barack's usual supporters are not running with those remarks.  They go a long way towards explaining how the crises emerged in the first place.


    By the way, I'm being accused of being a Barack groupie due to yesterday's snapshot.  Six years of calling him out, mocking him, etc and I give him a few words of praise -- praise that he earned -- and I'm a Barack groupie?

    I'm more sympathetic to those who feel I was 'happy talking' yesterday.

    I'm sure I was.  Nouri has destroyed Iraq. 

    In addition to the many things we noted yesterday, I also feel he ordered the assassination of journalist Hadi al-Mahdi.



    I believe this was a huge moment for Iraq.


    Dan Friedman and Corky Siemaszko (New York Daily News) refer to Nouri as "Iraq's power-hungry prime minister."  That's a rather nice way of putting it.

    I think Nouri set a tone with his violence and his violent language.  The videos of the Sunni suspects being burned alive by Iraqi military officers reflected to me not some 'evil' in the heart of a segment of Iraqis but the clear influence of years and years of Nouri demonizing Sunnis and other groups in Iraq.

    So, yes, I was upbeat and thrilled for the Iraqi people.


    I will gladly confess to being  upbeat.


    Let's move on.  Hillary Clinton is many things -- former First Lady, former US Senator, former Secretary of State, etc.  What she was when she sat down with Jeffrey Goldberg for a piece in The Atlantic?

    Deeply stupid.

    Deeply, deeply stupid.

    We're not the Gaza snapshot, we're not covering that aspect here.  Others can grab it.

    We focus on Iraq and sometimes on campaigns.

    Hillary, a tip, as an elderly woman -- and putting blond coloring in your gray hair doesn't make you any less elderly -- you really shouldn't be calling yourself "old fashioned." Though it does make clear that a woman can be anything -- even an old coot -- it really doesn't help your own self image.

    Outside of that, we're focusing on Iraq.

    In a never-ending, mind numbing interview Hillary mentions Iraq.

    For example, here:

    We have our hands full in Syria and Iraq, just to name two places, maybe increasingly in Lebanon, and who knows what’s going to happen with us and Hamas.


    Speaking of Egypt:

    I think we’ve learned about the limits of our power to spread freedom and democracy. That’s one of the big lessons out of Iraq. But we’ve also learned about the importance of our power, our influence, and our values appropriately deployed and explained.


    Then she insists:

    I don’t think it was stupid for the United States to do everything we could to remove Qaddafi because that came from the bottom up. That was people asking us to help. It was stupid to do what we did in Iraq and to have no plan about what to do after we did it. That was really stupid. I don’t think you can quickly jump to conclusions about what falls into the stupid and non-stupid categories. That’s what I’m arguing.

    And that's it.

    She's a deeply stupid woman.

    Iraq has been a major issue for weeks now and Hillary's gabbing in a foreign policy interview.

    Someone so out of touch maybe shouldn't be slamming Barack?

    I have no problem with criticism of any US president or, in Bully Boy Bush's case, Oval Office Occupant -- whether they're still in office or have left.  I have a problem with stupid criticism.

    If Hillary had just stuck her tongue out at US President Barack Obama, she would have shown more wisdom.

    Her attempt to link events in Syria and Iraq is stupid and we'll go into that shortly. 

    But Hillary gabs where she wants you to look.  With her, it's the topics she doesn't bring up that tell the story because she knows her own failings.

    Where was her leadership on Iraq?

    In 2008, she called Nouri a "thug" and noted he was a threat to the Iraqi people.  In 2010, when Nouri al-Maliki lost the elections to Iraqiya, where was Hillary?

    Where was she?

    When did she lead -- from behind, beneath, above, below, upside down . . . ?

    She didn't.

    She avoids Iraq for that reason.

    While not leading, she did resist.  Specifically, she resisted a court order to re-evaluate the status of the MEK.  During her husband Bill's presidency, this group of Iranian dissidents were placed on a terrorist list.

    As Secretary of State, she was ordered to re-evaluate that.

    She resisted.

    The court had to remind her of her duty.

    Then, when she did act, she 'ruled' not based on potential threat but based on whether the group in Iraq would move from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriyah.

    I don't believe the Ashraf community can be labeled terrorists.

    But I also don't believe you look at a group -- most of whose members are outside of Iraq -- and make the determination of terrorist or not by how quickly dissidents in Iraq move from one camp to another.

    I could go into more detail but I just think, unless she's going to be serving up some personal confessions, now really isn't the time for Hillary to try to cast herself as the foreign policy expert and Barack as the great dunce.



    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"



    Posted by at

    Tuesday, August 12, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! SEEMS LIKE OLD TIME!

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

    IT'S LIKE 2008 ALL OVER AGAIN.  HILLARY SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT BARACK AND HIS PIT BULLS COME OUT.

    LIKE AN, AGED DINER WAITRESS, DAVID AXELROD STEPS UP SINGING SLASS AND HASH.  
    REACHED FOR COMMENT AFTER, AXELROD SAID TO THESE REPORTERS, "SOMEONE HAS TO CALL HER OUT, SOMEONE HAS TO.  NOW DO YOU BOYS WANT SOME DESSERT OR CAN I GET YOUR BILL?"



    If someone refused to step down from office when their term was over, most people would call the man or woman "insane."  AFP goes with the softer sounding "defiant" to describe Nouri al-Maliki.

    In a scene similar to what many of us on the left in the US feared might happen in 2008, a leader is refusing to leave office.  In fairness to Bully Boy Bush, he remains in Dallas and did vacate the White House in January 2009.  But the man he insisted (in 2006) become prime minister, the same man that US President Barack Obama insisted (in 2010) remain prime minister just doesn't want to take the hint and go.

    The chief thug and outgoing prime minister of Iraq doesn't want to leave office.

    The Associated Press is calling it a "foreign policy crisis."

    What is the foreign policy crisis?

    US President Barack Obama explained this evening from Martha's Vineyard, "Today, Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort.   Last month, the Iraqi people named a new President.  Today, President Masum named a new Prime Minister designate, Dr. Haider al-Abadi.  Under the Iraqi constitution, this is an important step towards forming a new government that can unite Iraq’s different communities."

    Nouri, the man who brought the Iraq government to a standstill in 2010 when he refused to step down as prime minister after losing the election to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, began acting strangely -- even for him -- last week though most only noticed his strangeness last night.

    Nouri had a tantrum yesterday when the President of Iraq, Fuad Masum, refused to name him prime minister.  As Loveday Morris (Washington Post) reported:

     
    In actions that had all the markings of a political coup, Maliki gave a defiant late-night speech in Baghdad saying he would lodge a legal case against the country’s president, who has resisted naming him as the candidate for another term as prime minister.
    Tanks rumbled onto major bridges and roads in the capital as security forces were put on high alert, with militiamen also patrolling Shiite neighborhoods. The special forces teams surrounding the Green Zone were taking orders directly from the prime minister, security officials said.



    The Guardian quotes from a statement by US State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf:


    The United States fully supports president Fuad Masum in his role as guarantor of the Iraqi constitution.  We reaffirm our support for a process to select a prime minister who can represent the aspirations of the Iraqi people by building a national consensus and governing in an inclusive manner. We reject any effort to achieve outcomes through coercion or manipulation of the constitutional or judicial process.


    Also yesterday, the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:



    Nouri's most recent crazy had included threatening that the "gates of hell" would open if he didn't receive a third term as prime minister, he bullied the President of Iraq to the point that Masum publicly stated he would not be bullied into naming a prime minister-designate.

    So yesterday's stunt, his last minute crazy rambles on state television and his stationing forces around Baghdad appeared to be the last straw.  As Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) explained, "Washington seems to be losing patience with Maliki, who has placed Shi'ite political loyalists in key positions in the army and military and drawn comparisons with executed former dictator Saddam Hussein, the man he plotted against from exile for years."

    This morning, Lolita C. Baldor and Julie Pace (AP) reported that the White House  decided to send weapons directly to the Kurdistan Regional Government,  bypassing the central government of Baghdad.  This was about the loss of patience and trust with Nouri and all his crazy which has destroyed Iraq for years now.

    Finally, the US government is walking away from him.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq"




    Posted by at

    Saturday, August 09, 2014

    THIS JUST IN! HE SPEAKS SOME TRUTH!

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

    NUMBER 2 JUST BECAME NUMBER 4.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT TONIGHT AS HE VACATIONED ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD, BARRY O TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I'M BASICALLY VERY SHALLOW AND UNABLE TO THINK OF ANYTHING ORIGINAL TO DO OR SAY.  THAT LEAVES ME WITH VERY LIMITED OPTIONS."



    Speaking at the US State Dept today, spokesperson Marie Harf declared, "As you saw this morning, the Defense Department put out a statement that at approximately 6:45 a.m. the U.S. military conducted a targeted airstrike against ISIL terrorists with two F/A-18 aircraft dropping 500-pound laser-guided bombs on a mobile artillery piece near Erbil that ISIL was using to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, where, of course, U.S. personnel are located. As the President has made clear, the U.S. military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when they threaten our personnel or facilities."

    Last night, US President Barack Obama announced he would be authorizing air strikes on Iraq. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "Less than 12 hours after he finished speaking, the United States had already struck twice and a third bombing run was just a few hours away. The quick series of airstrikes raised fears among some of mission creep _ a term coined during the Vietnam War to describe a growing commitment of men and materiel after initial steps failed to produce the desired result."


    US House Rep Barbara Lee is one who has noted mission creep.  Her office released this statement today:

    Washington, DC - Congresswoman Lee issued this statement upon receiving news of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq:
    “I support strictly humanitarian efforts to prevent genocide in Iraq.
    While the President has existing authority to protect American diplomatic personnel,  I remain concerned about U.S. mission creep in Iraq and escalation into a larger conflict, which I oppose.
    There is no military solution in Iraq. Any lasting solution must be political and respect the rights of all Iraqis.
    I am pleased President Obama recognized this in his statement last night, when he said: ‘there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.  The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.’
    I will continue to call for the President to seek congressional authorization before any combat operations. For too long, Congress has abdicated its Constitutional role in matters of war and peace. The President should come to Congress for authorization of any further military action in Iraq.”
    ###


    When's he going to come before Congress? 

    Next week?

    Are they holding Congressional sessions on Martha's Vineyard because Barack's embarking on a two week vacation.

    Last night he declared:
    Today I authorized two operations in Iraq -- targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death.  Let me explain the actions we’re taking and why.    
    First, I said in June -- as the terrorist group ISIL began an advance across Iraq -- that the United States would be prepared to take targeted military action in Iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it.  In recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across Iraq, and have neared the city of Erbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces. 
    To stop the advance on Erbil, I’ve directed our military to take targeted strikes against ISIL terrorist convoys should they move toward the city.  We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad.  We’re also providing urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against ISIL.
    Second, at the request of the Iraqi government -- we’ve begun operations to help save Iraqi civilians stranded on the mountain.  As ISIL has marched across Iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent Iraqis.  And these terrorists have been especially barbaric towards religious minorities, including Christian and Yezidis, a small and ancient religious sect.  Countless Iraqis have been displaced.  And chilling reports describe ISIL militants rounding up  families, conducting mass executions, and enslaving Yezidi women. 
    In recent days, Yezidi women, men and children from the area of Sinjar have fled for their lives.  And thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- are now hiding high up on the mountain, with little but the clothes on their backs.  They’re without food, they’re without water.  People are starving.  And children are dying of thirst.  Meanwhile, ISIL forces below have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yezidi people, which would constitute genocide.  So these innocent families are faced with a horrible choice:  descend the mountain and be slaughtered, or stay and slowly die of thirst and hunger.
    I’ve said before, the United States cannot and should not intervene every time there’s a crisis in the world.  So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now.  When we face a situation like we do on that mountain -- with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help -- in this case, a request from the Iraqi government -- and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye.  We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide.  That’s what we’re doing on that mountain.

    I’ve, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there.  Already, American aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian airdrops of food and water to help these desperate men, women and children survive.  Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, “There is no one coming to help.”  Well today, America is coming to help.  We’re also consulting with other countries -- and the United Nations -- who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis. 

    Late last night, he declared that and more.  Kicking it off with the statement that he made his decision "today."  But he didn't inform Congress of it until Friday (today).

    When did he make his decision?  Margaret Talev (Bloomberg News) reports he made his decision "[d]uring a five-minute limo ride back to the White House from the State Department with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey" in which "Obama's fears were confirmed."  AP also notes Barack's Riding In Cars With Boys moment which they say took place Wednesday.  BBC News' Jonathan Marcus offers, "Analysts say the relentless advance of IS fighters, together with the continuing failure of Iraqi politicians to agree on a new government, after an inconclusive election in April, may have swayed Mr Obama into deciding to act now."

    Another hypothesis is offered by BBC News' Paul Danahar.  Friday morning on The Diane Rehm Show (NPR), Diane asked him about the strikes.

    REHM: Paul Danahar, President Obama authorized the airstrikes against Iraq to begin this morning. What was his rationale? 

    DANAHAR: Well, I think we can guess that finally, he's found a conflict that he thinks is fairly localized, has a clear objective, and will stop him getting so much flack for not doing any of the things he's always talked about, which is having a high moral value in America that will stop bad things happening around the world. When there is an American interest, and there is an American interest in this, because there are American personnel in Erbil. 

    REHM: How many? 

    DANAHAR: Around about 40 we think. So, that's a good reason to intervene. And we do have what may literally be a genocide of these people, these Yezidis, because they are a very small group of people, between 70,000, maybe a couple hundred thousand. And they're all pretty much located in one place in Iraq, so if they were taken over by ISIS. And ISIS considers them to be devil worshippers. They would wipe them out, so this is an intervention that I think Obama is probably comfortable with, because he can see a beginning and an end. 

    40?  Did he mispeak?

    The number issue was raised at the Friday press briefing.


    QUESTION: I’ll go back to the humanitarian situation --

    MS. HARF: Okay.

    QUESTION: -- in a second. But first, just a couple of quick questions. How many American citizens are at the consulate in Erbil, absent the military presence right now?

    MS. HARF: So we don’t give exact numbers. Let me just give a quick update. I know there are a lot of questions about the status of our consulate there. It is operating normally. There’s been no change to the current status of our consulate. We continue to monitor the security situation and will take appropriate steps to mitigate the risk to our colleagues. Obviously, we do this on a continuing basis. We don’t comment on specific numbers, are always reviewing staffing levels in light of the security posture. But I would note that the – one of the reasons, obviously, not just to protect Erbil but that we want to keep our people there is so they can keep working in this joint operation center to help the Iraqis fight this threat. We don’t want to have to pull them out. We’re constantly reevaluating the security.

    QUESTION: I understand the reluctance to talk about specific numbers. I don’t need a specific number.

    MS. HARF: It’s not a reluctance. We just never do it, as you know.

    QUESTION: Well, we know there are about 5,000 people in the U.S. mission in Iraq right now. The vast majority of them are in Baghdad. So can you give some kind of – for example, I’ve been told somewhere between two to three hundred are in --

    MS. HARF: I’m just not going to give any number ranges for security reasons. I understand the desire to have them. We do have a large presence still in Baghdad as well. You are correct on that.

    Really, Marie?

    When did it become classified?

    This week?

    I was at a Congressional hearing this summer where the State Dept official addressed the topic Marie claims must be kept secret.




    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)