Wednesday, October 28, 2015

THIS JUST IN! SERIOUS POLITICS!


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

CRANKY CLINTON MADE NICE WITH CAPON STEPHEN COLBERT ON HIS SAD SHOW TUESDAY NIGHT.

BY FAILING TO BITE THE HEAD OFF ANY AUDIENCE MEMBER, CRANKY'S APPEARANCE WAS HAILED AS A "TRIUMPH" BY HER LEATHER CROWD IN THE MEDIA.

"THE THING ABOUT S&M," CRANKY EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE PRETTY TO BE A GOOD MISTRESS.  YOU JUST HAVE TO INFLICT PAIN.  BILL CAN TELL YOU I KNOW HOW TO DO THAT AND, SOON, AMERICA WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO AS WELL."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Starting with news of even more war, Missy Ryan and Greg Jaffe (Washington Post) report,
The president’s most senior national security advisers have recommended measures that would move U.S. troops closer to the front lines in Iraq and Syria, officials said, a sign of mounting White House dissatisfaction with progress against the Islamic State and a renewed Pentagon push to expand military involvement in long-running conflicts overseas.


Kristina Wong (The Hill) adds:


U.S. military commanders have forwarded several options to the Defense Department in the last few weeks, the officials told The Hill, as part of a mounting push within the administration to more aggressively target the terrorist group.
One of the options presented was embedding U.S. troops with Iraqi security forces; they would have the ability to call in airstrikes, a step that would bring American forces to the front line.


RT speaks with Phyllis Bennis:



RT: Can the Pentagon still realistically maintain its 'no boots on the ground' stance given that an American soldier has been killed apparently in action?

Phyllis Bennis: I think the question of US boots on the ground has been true for over a year now. We’ve had at least 35,000 troops in Iraq that went back last year and I don’t think most people in this [US] country recognize the difference any more than they would in Russia if and when Russian troops or volunteers are sent to Syria; if somebody tries to claim they are not combat troops, nobody would believe that either. These are troops engaged in combat. They are advising, they are supporting, they are arming, they are training and they are fighting with forces on the ground. So, the notion that there are ‘no boots’ is simply not the case. We also know that besides 35,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq there are an unknown number of other Special Forces and CIA forces on the ground. Maybe they wear sneakers rather than boots. But there is no question that US forces have been fighting directly in Iraq for more than a year now.



I think Isaiah captured the absurdity better back on October 26, 2014 26th "Barack Prepares:"


  





In the comic above, a confused White House spokesperson Josh Earnest asks, "What's he doing?" Valerie Jarrett explains, "Ballet slippers on the ground are not boots on the ground."  
Why today's talk?
Possibly because . . . 


Thursday saw the combat death of 39-year-old Master Sgt Joshua L. Wheeler in Iraq.


And possibly because of the silence that greeted this death.

Silence?


 Press TV notes Noam Chomsky can talk about Iraq today:

Prominent American author and linguist Noam Chomsky has blasted the US foreign policy, calling Washington's 2003 invasion of Iraq “the worst crime of this century.”
“What right do we have to kill somebody in some other country who we don't like,” Chomsky told teleSUR on Monday.
Calling the US-led invasion of Iraq “the worst crime of this century,” the renowned scholar and intellectual said, “Suppose it had worked... it's still a major crime, why do we have the right to invade another country?”




But sadly not everyone can follow Noam's example.


Take two of our 'great' rags on the left: The Progressive and The Nation.



The Progressive ignored the death and its implication.

Remember, editor Ruth Conniff bragged on KPFA that she didn't know anyone who'd been touched by the war.

How very nice for her and the other racists in the gated community she lives in.

Then there's The Nation magazine.


Anyone remember their November 10, 2005 editorial?


It started on the cover and continued inside the rag.

They insisted they "wound only support candidates who made a speedy end to this [Iraq] war a major campaign issue."


Ignoring the combat death, ignoring the ongoing war, let's them pretend like they ever fulfilled that promise.

Just like they pretend the Iraq War ended.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Cranky Clinton..."
"Chairman Miller Statement on Attempts to Downplay ..."
"Statement of IAVA's Ryan Kaufman on VetSuccess Cam..."
"Noam weighs in, Tony weasels"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Classy Clinton..."
"Isakson to Hold Hearing on Veterans’ Mental Health..."
"I'm not interested in the bulls**t"
"War Criminals"
"Bond's best?"
"The War Criminal and MSNBC too"
"Cranky Clinton"
"Musical Tweet of note"
"Barack needs to answer for this"
"Bernie throws down with Hillary"
"surveillance flights over baltimore & ferguson"
"ObamaCare rates to sky rocket"
"Martin O'Malley tells it like it is"
"No excuse"
"Marvel Agents of SHIELD"
"Arrow (into the pit, the pit is no more)"
"Ortiz for City Commissioner"
"How To Pump Up Bad Ratings"
"She is just an embarrassment"
"Shrimp Dip in the Kitchen"
"Always the liar, Hillary Clinton"
"the yawn inducing scandal, heroes reborn shows a little life"
"Can't figure them out"
"Marital Aid"
"THIS JUST IN! SHE DA MAN, SHE DA MAN!"
"Macho Cranky"







Posted by at

Saturday, October 24, 2015

THIS JUST IN! SHE DA MAN, SHE DA MAN!

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

CRANKY CLINTON, FRESH OFF HER LATEST MACHO, MANLY EXPLOITS, TOOK THE DAY TO BOAST OF HERSELF.

"YEAH," SHE INSISTED AS SHE GRABBED HER CROTCH, "I RANG CIRCLES AROUND THOSE JERKS.  BENGHAZI?  MORE LIKE FERNGULLY AFTER I GOT THROUGH DANCING ACROSS THEIR HEADS."

WITH THAT, CRANKY LIFTED UP HER LEFT LEG, FARTED AND WALKED OFF YELLING, "FORGET THE VILLAGE, IT JUST TAKES ME!"




Staying with CNN, Barbara Starr reports:



The information still coming in, very sketchy, but a short time ago, a US official directly familiar with the information told CNN there has been one US military fatality in this hostage mission overnight in Iraq. Apparently US Special Operations Forces were ordered into this mission to rescue a number of Kurdish hostages. We're told the estimate is that some 70 Kurdish hostages were rescued.  The Kurds, of course, are in northern Iraq.  This is a group that the US has -- the US military has especially been working very closely with.  I think it is safe to assume that there were some Kurdish elements there on the ground with the US troops -- they do work hand in hand.  But this would be, to the best of our knowledge, the first US combat fatality on the ground in the war against ISIS.  US troops are not on the ground in combat under President Obama's orders.  They have gone in a couple of times into Syria on the  ground for hostage rescue missions, for capturing high value targets, but this is not something that we have yet seen -- a US service member potentially killed on the ground in this war against ISIS.



James Rosen and Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) add, "It was also the first time that American combat troops have undertaken a ground mission in Iraq since President Obama sent the first of 3,000 troops back there 16 months ago with orders that limited their activities to training, advising and equipping Iraqi soldiers."  Missy Ryan, Mustafa Salim and Thomas Gibbons-Neff (Washington Post) report, "In a pre-dawn operation, soldiers from the Army’s Delta Force, supporting a team of elite Kurdish soldiers, descended on a militant compound in the town of Hawijah, where officials believed that dozens of Kurdish fighters known as peshmerga were being held captive."  DoD noted:



U.S. Special Forces supported an Iraqi peshmerga operation earlier today to rescue about 70 hostages from an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant prison near Hawijah, Iraq, Defense Department Press Secretary Peter Cook told reporters at the Pentagon this afternoon.
American Special Forces personnel carried out the planned operation at the request of the Kurdistan regional government after learning through intelligence sources that the hostages faced imminent mass execution, Cook said.
The Special Forces mission was consistent with Operation Inherent Resolve’s counter-ISIL efforts to train, advise, and assist Iraqi forces, he emphasized.
One U.S. service member and four peshmerga soldiers were wounded when ISIL extremists fired on U.S. and Iraqi forces during the rescue, he said, adding the U.S. service member was medically treated but later died.

The recovered hostages were placed with the Kurdistan Regional government, Cook said, adding that no hostages died during the rescue to his knowledge.


Richard Sisk (Military.com) observes, "The death of the American, whose service branch was not immediately disclosed, was the first combat fatality suffered by the U.S. in the campaign against ISIS and as such raised questions about the U.S. mission in Iraq and President Obama's pledge not to commit 'boots on the ground' to the fight."



The death was raised at today's US State Dept press briefing.  It so unnerves the State Dept that they made an error in their transcript (first "MR TONER" below should actually be "QUESTION"):


MR TONER: I just wondered if you have anything on the operation – rescue operation happened in Hawija by – in cooperation with the Kurdish special forces. Were there any American hostages rescued there?


MR TONER: Well, you’re talking about, of course, the rescue mission that took place – right, exactly – on the ISIL prison in Hawija, Iraq. My counterpart, Peter Cook, I think is briefing on this shortly or if not concurrently. But in answer to – specific answer to your question, no, I’m not aware that there were any U.S. citizens, which I think you were asking about. Now, understanding was that it was about 70 hostages, 20 of them were members of, we believe, Iraqi Security Forces, and that’s as much information as I have.


QUESTION: Right. If you have any information on that, was that the first rescue mission operations being conducted by United States forces in cooperation with Iraq? Is that the one – first one in Iraq, I believe?


MR TONER: I believe it is the first – you’re saying hostage rescue?


QUESTION: Yes.


MR TONER: I believe it is, but defer to others who know more about that. But I think that’s correct.




Mark C. Toner had nothing to offer.


But how could he?

Isn't this the start -- or at least the public recognition -- of the mission creep so many warned about when Barack began sending US troops into Iraq as 'trainers' in August of last year?


The Iraq War has not ended.


Barack Obama will leave the White House in January 2017 with the Iraq War still going.

This despite his portraying himself as against the Iraq War (only before it started -- check the public record) and thundering "We want to end the war" to the Cult of St Barack over and over in 2007 and 2008.

"We" apparently didn't include him.

He had the power to end it.

He chose not to.

The Iraq War continues.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"


  •  


  •  
    Posted by at

    Thursday, October 22, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! SHE ROAMS THE PRAIRIE!

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


    THE HILDABEAST ROAMS THE PRAIRIE FOR ANOTHER DAY STALKING ITS PREY.

    EVEN U.S. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SHIED AWAY FROM TAKING ON CRANKY CLINTON -- ONE OF D.C.'S MOST VILE AND TOXIC BY PRODUCTS.

    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS."

    SHE THEN ATTEMPTED TO DO IT HAMMER TIME BUT TRIPPED, FELL FLAT ON HER FACE, FARTED AND SIGHED, "COULD YOU JUST SHOW YOURSELVES OUT?"






    Let's start with politics.



    14 hours ago
    , "We made a mistake going into Iraq" and weighs in on the war in Afghanistan:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
    117 retweets 121 favorites




    I know Donald Trump.  I don't like Donald Trump.  I'm not voting for Donald Trump.


    But I find it hilarious how so many on the centrist-left side -- not real leftists, just whores for the Democratic Party -- are obsessed over when Trump was against the Iraq War.  Was it before the illegal war started (March 2003) or, as the public record seems to indicate, some time in 2004?


    While the whores rush to attack him, does anyone bother to register Hillary Clinton?


    She 'regrets' her vote authorizing the Iraq War (mainly because it's the one mess she hasn't been able to lie herself out of).  It was a "mistake."

    Where's her statement on Iraq?

    Where's her statement on anything other than her own narcissistic self?

    The worthless might consider that but then if the likes of Kevin Drum were honest or ethical, instead of challenging Trump or anyone else, they'd be taking a vow of public silence because it's trash like (and including) Kevin Drum that pimped the Iraq War to begin with.


    It's a sign of how craven the Kevin Drums are -- and how craven their candidate Hillary is -- that they need to attack someone for decrying the Iraq War.


    While the US election is a year away, Canada's held their election.


    The loser?

    Stephen Harper.  The War Hawk who persecutes war resisters has been prime minister of Canada since February 2006.

    Thanks to the election, he's out and Justin Trudeau is in.  Trudeau will not only become Canada's next prime minister, he'll become the second in his family.  He's the son of the late Pierre Trudeau whose name has been raised repeatedly over the last years as people noted that, during Vietnam, Canada was a refuge for war resisters while, under Harper, it became known for kicking them out of the country.


    Australia's ABC reports:



    Canada's prime minister-elect Justin Trudeau has told US president Barack Obama that Canadian fighter jets will withdraw from fighting the Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq and Syria.
    Mr Trudeau told a press conference that, while Canada remains "a strong member of the coalition against ISIL", he had commitments to end the combat mission.



    June 19, 2014, Barack declared the only answer to Iraq's various crises was a political solution. But in the months that followed, he didn't work on a political solution, he worked on building a group of countries that would agree to bomb the already war-torn Iraq.

    The bombings have not been successful.

    Civilians have been killed and wounded.

    Any 'militants' killed?

    The bombings have been a great recruiting tool for the Islamic State.

    Barack's 'plan' is a failure, Operation Inherent Failure.


    And now Canada plans to walk away from the bombings.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Iraq"



    Posted by at

    Tuesday, October 20, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! IT TAKES A SOCK PUPPET!

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


    WHEN NOT FERRYING IN DRUGS FROM MENA, ARK. OR EATING THE HEADS OF SMALL CHILDREN, CRANKY CLINTON CAN BE FOUND IN BROOKLYN AT A COMPUTER HUB WHERE SHE -- THE ULTIMATE SOCK PUPPET -- LEAVES HUNDREDS OF NEGATIVE REVIEWS ON ANY BOOK THAT DARES TO SUGGEST CANKLES ARE NOT THE NEW BOOTY.


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY USED A STEAK KNIFE TO REMOVE SCRAPS STUCK IN HER TEETH AND SNARLED, "I AM LEGEND!"

    NO, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE MEANT EITHER.

    BUT WHEN SHE BARES HER FANGS, YOU JUST NOD QUICKLY AS YOU BACK SLOWLY AWAY.

    SLOWLY.



    FROM THE TCI WIRE:



    Jon Stone (Independent) reports that Andrew MacKinlay, Labour MP during the lead up to the Iraq War, has declared himself "ashamed" for having faith in Tony Blair:


     Andrew MacKinlay, who sat on the foreign affairs select committee in the run-up to the war, told LBC Radio that a new memo shows Tony Blair “duped” him along with the rest of the country. 

    “Looking at this these documents this morning and everything else that has gone before we know that this was a complete and utter deceit to me and to others,” he said.


    What's he talking about?


    Telesur notes, "A 2002 memo from former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to President George Bush suggests that then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair had already committed support for an invasion of Iraq – almost 1 year before the invasion took place.

    News of the agreement surfaced Saturday.

    Sunday saw a denial on behalf of Blair.  Olivia Goldhill (Quarts) reports:

     A spokeswoman from Tony Blair’s office said in an email to Quartz that the memo did not contradict what Blair has said in public. “This story is nothing new. The memo is consistent with what Mr. Blair was saying publicly at the time and with Mr. Blair’s evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry,” she said, referring to Britain’s public inquiry into the Iraq war.


    But others aren't so quick to buy that spin.  Rowena Mason (Guardian) reports:


    Alex Salmond, the SNP’s foreign affairs spokesman and Scotland’s former first minister, said “the net was now closing” around Blair and added to concern over Chilcot’s conduct.
    “The memo contradicts claims from Mr Blair that all that time he had been seeking diplomatic ways to avoid an invasion. It also adds weight to the evidence given by Sir Christopher Meyer, the former UK ambassador to the United States – to the Chilcot inquiry – that the military timetable and preparation for invasion took precedence over any diplomacy and specifically over the timetable for the weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix,” Salmond said.



    And BBC News notes, "BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said the document appeared to offer a revealing insight into how Mr Blair was perceived at the very highest level in Washington, in the year before the Iraq War."  Samuel Osborne (Independent) adds, "Mr Blair, who served as prime minister between 1997 and 2007, has repeatedly denied rushing to war in Iraq."





    What stood out most about the story this morning is how it echoed The Downing Street Memo in that major American outlets avoided it.  This morning, the only US outlet covering it seriously was the Associated Press (click here for Danica Kirka's story).


    Since then?

    Global Research has covered the story.  Dissident Voice carries a serious examination by Felicity Arbuthnot which ties up many ends and also notes:

    Also notable is that so keen was Tony Blair to ally George W. Bush in invasion-plotting that he left the UK during the ten days national mourning for Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. The longest living member of the Royal family had died on March 30, 2002. Queues lined to pay their last respects as she lay in state in Westminster Abbey, the Monarchy grieved and Her Majesty’s Prime Minister, Blair, boarded a ‘plane to the US.


    Jennifer Deutschmann covers the subject for Inquisitr.  Sophia Tesfaye publicly embarrasses herself (it's all about the GOP race for president!!!!!) at Salon but Salon's where all the non-thinkers go.  That said, she should be greeted with rotten fruit wherever she dares to show her face after taking the revelations and trying to turn them into whore points for the Democratic Party.  She's a real piece of trash so it's good that she works at a garbage dump.  For an example of crazy on the right-wing side of the spectrum, you can check out the loony tunes Michael Rubin serves up at Commentary.


    And what of 'brave' McClatchy Newspapers?


    As we've long noted, McClatchy didn't do a damn thing to report the truth in the lead up to the Iraq War.

    Knight-Ridder did.

    And McClatchy purchased the Knight-Ridder chain in June of 2006.

    But McClatchy was as cowardly as most other outlets -- cowardly and craven -- in 2002 and 2003.


    They remain so today.


    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Jacky Sutton's questionable death"
    "Hejira"
    "Francis A. Boyle on Truth and the disgusting Dan R..."
    "Whoria Steinem weighs in"
    "Poor, evil Hillary"
    "Minority Report"
    "One bit of good news"
    "ab fab"
    "Ed Snowden responds"
    "And that's why I won't vote for Bernie Sanders"
    "He gets Hillary, he really gets her"
    "Biden?"



  • "THIS JUST IN! HILLARY INSISTS 'YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS!'"
    "Phoning Hillary"




    • Posted by at

    Sunday, October 18, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! HILLARY INSISTS 'YOU CAN'T TOUCH THIS!'

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



    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, SHE REPLIED, "I'LL GET 8 YEARS IN THE WHITE HOUSE OR 10 IN THE SLAMMER -- SAME DIFF."

    ASKED WHY SHE WAS BEING SO FLIPPANT, CRANKY REPLIED, "AIN'T NOBODY EVER BEEN ABLE TO PIN ANYTHING ON ME, YOU SEE.  THEY AIN'T NEVER GOING TO PIN ANYTHING ON ME COZ I GOT FRIENDS, YOU SEE, FRIENDS WHO PROTECT ME. THEY ALWAYS COME AFTER ME BUT NO ONE'S PINNED NOTHING ON ME SO FAR!"

    AND WITH A LOUD CACKLE, SHE HUNG UP THE PHONE ON HER END.





    "Save the cheerleader, save the world," NBC's Heroes insisted throughout its original run but the imprisonment and/or death of at least one cheerleader might have saved the world -- at least when that cheerleader was Tony Blair.

    War Criminal Blair lied to the Iraq Inquiry when he testified just a few years ago but he's been lying since 2002.  He's a War Criminal and he's a liar.

    David Millward (Telegraph of London) reports:


     The controversy over Tony Blair’s decision to back George Bush over the Iraq war has been rekindled after a memo emerged showing the Prime Minister pledged to support an invasion a year ahead of the conflict.
    Details of the Prime Minister’s readiness to back the US in bringing down Saddam Hussein are contained in a note from Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, to George Bush, ahead of Mr Blair’s April 2002 summit with the President in Crawford Texas.
    The memo was found in a batch of secret emails on the private server of Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State, which was made available by the US courts. 


    As Millward reminds, a year before the start of the Iraq War, Tony Blair was lying to the world by insisting the efforts were towards a diplomatic solution.  Millward also reports, "A second memo says that Mr Blair used spies within the Labour party to help influence public opinion in favour of the war."


    Tony Blair is exposed as the liar he always was, yes.

    But it also exposes two other liars: Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton.


    Colin The Blot Powell.

    Remember when that piece of trash went on 20/20 insisting his lies to the United Nations were unknown by him at the time (he knew, use the link).

    He's a dam liar.

    He's a piece of filth trash.

    And that brings us to the little puppy following around sniffing at his crotch little Larry Wilkerson.

    MSNBC tried to turn him into a star and saint but the Scott Pritchard to Colin Powell's David Brice never took because he's unphotogenic and highly off putting.

    But MSNBC tried, didn't they?

    Rachel Maddow had him on countless times, this apologist for Colin Powell, this member of the War Machine, this liar to the American people.

    It's not just the original liars, it's these news ones.  Rachel Maddow's Iraq special, for goodness sake, was even called out as fraudulent by Randi Rhodes.

    Yet Rachel is held up as a truth teller when all she's ever been is a little liar.  She was for the Iraq War -- she was even calling for it to continue when Air America Radio started and repeatedly insisted on air that "if you break it, you own it.  That's the Pottery Barn policy."  But it wasn't the Pottery Barn policy and Iraqis -- the owners of Iraq, please grasp -- were not asking US forces to stay in Iraq.

    But a liar like Rachel, a corporate whore, just sets up her own end.  So she lied when Lizz Winstead walked from Unfiltered and told people Lizz was just sick.  She lied about the fact that Unfiltered had only a month left and that they would be replaced by trash TV merchant Jerry Springer.  She had her father being a sock puppet on the Unfiltered message board.  And she was paid off for her lies by getting her own Air America Radio show.

    To get her MSNBC show, she insisted to AP that Chris Matthews was sexist and then, when informed she'd have her own show, she carried out her tit-for-tat part of the agreement by insisting Chris Matthews was not a sexist.

    Chris Matthews is a sexist.

    This was a known reality long before Rachel used the charge in 2008 to leverage her own show.

    But not according to Rachel.

    She's a liar who'll say anything and only the ridiculous idiots at The Nation magazine will pretend otherwise and pretend that her corporate and centrist politics are at all left -- she's actually about as left as Joe Lieberman.

    The same woman (who along with Lizz -- sorry, Lizz) refused to have war resisters on Unfiltered continues to preach and promote policies and candidates who are not left.

    She's the perfect foil for Hillary Clinton's campaign of destruction that runs right through the White House.


    And Hillary . . .

    She feels so sorry about her Iraq War vote, right?

    That's her lie she insists.

    But she won't talk about it.

    Turns out, she wouldn't talk about the arrangement Bully Boy Bush and Tony Blair had.

    She'd communicate it in e-mails.

    But to the American people, the ones she needs to vote for her?

    She just continued the lies because she is a liar.

    This was a Republican deal -- Bully Boy Bush was in the White House.

    So why has she covered up for them?

    She (ghost)wrote that bad book Hard Choices Easy Whoring and supposedly that told the truth about Iraq.

    Supposedly.

    Turns out the whore can't stop lying about Iraq.

    She'll say anything, put her name to any text someone else writes, because she's a dishonest liar.

    And she and Colin are now exposed as the eternal liars they both are.

    For years now, both gutter dwellers have insisted they were misled -- by intel, by this, by that.

    They're just liars who cover up for other damn liars.




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"




    Posted by at

    Wednesday, October 14, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S SELF-LOVE!

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

    STOMPING THE STAGE IN LAS VEGAS LAST NIGHT, CRANKY CLINTON RAISED THE BANK BAIL OUT AND WALL STREET AND HOW SHE, SINGLE-HANDEDLY!, WENT TO THEM AND SNARLED, "CUT IT OUT!"

    LEFT OUT OF HER BOAST WAS THE REALITY THAT NO ONE LISTENED TO HER.

    ASKED, IF ELECTED PRESIDENT, WOULD ANYONE LISTEN TO HER, CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS THAT IT DIDN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY DID OR NOT "BECAUSE I WILL KNOW I AM THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON AND I WILL LISTEN."

    CRANKY THEN LAUNCHED INTO A 15 MINUTE EXPLANATION OF HOW SHE DECIDED TO VOTE FOR HERSELF AFTER THE LAS VEGAS DEBATE BECAUSE "I WAS JUST OUTSTANDING."


    FROM THE TCI WIRE:

    Wearing a ridiculous outfit that made her look alternately like a Puritan as well as someone who forgot her witch's hat, Hillary Clinton snarled and bellowed throughout tonight's Las Vegas debate.  The pan collar was a ridiculous as her responses.

    The debate was a huge joke as Anderson Cooper (moderator) played favorites and allowed Hillary to set the agenda repeatedly.  He was her water boy and she ordered him around throughout the debate.  That's not going to help her image or his.


    At the heart of her failure in tonight's debate was not her 2002 vote for the Iraq War but her refusal to ever take accountability for it.


    You saw a liar supreme, the equivalent of a cheating spouse who feigns remorse when caught but intends to keep on cheating.


    Hillary voted for the illegal war and continued to support it until the majority of the American people had turned against it.


    She's never apologized for that vote.  She's offered mealy mouthed words and, when offered in person, she's done so in a rude and dismissive manner.


    The Iraq War continues to this day.


    To this day she continues to refuse to take accountability.


    At the debate, her rivals for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination refused to allow her to wall off the topic the way she generally does.

    So Hillary was left to resort to pre-planned sound bytes.


    Lies.



    That became obvious as she introduced her latest 'defense' for her lousy 2002 vote: Barack picked her anyway!


    "Well, I recall very well," she huffed, "being on a debate stage -- I think about 25 times with then-Senator Obama debating this very issue.  After the election, he asked me to become Secretary of State.  He valued my judgment and I spent a lot of time with him in the Situation Room going over some very difficult issues."

    What a liar.

    Barack selected many War Hawks for his administration.

    Why did he select Hillary?

    To keep his enemies close.

    He might not have been re-elected in 2012 if Hillary had made a run for the nomination that year -- it might have left him wounded.

    He knew the best way to shut her (and Bill) up was to offer her a role.

    He knew the best way to stomach her was to give her a role that would keep her out of the country as much as possible.

    If he trusted her judgment on Iraq, he wouldn't have removed Iraq from her and made Joe Biden and Samantha Power the leads on Iraq.


    Equally true, she left the State Dept with a lengthy  travelogue but no serious accomplishments.


    The story of her life, she always pushes her way to the front when cameras are around but she never can point to any accomplishments.


    "Iraq snapshot"
    "Can you avoid realities while talking the KRG?"
    "Hejira"
    "Barack's full of it"
    "The disappointing Hillary"
    "How Not Able To Get Away With Boring"
    "Patrick Martin lays it bare"
    "Aren't you tired of the fakes?"
    "That disgusting Bernie Sanders"
    "Minority Report (Agnes)"
    "Further on The Originals"
    "marjorie cohn's back to lying again"
    "Before the debate . . ."


  • "THIS JUST IN! CRANKY GIVES VIRGINIA SOME ADVICE!"
    "Cranky says, "Eat me!""


    • Posted by at

    Monday, October 12, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY GIVES VIRGINIA SOME ADVICE!

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


    REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY DECLARED, "YEAH, WELL, I'M LIKE BROCCOLI AND THEY CAN JUST EAT ME!"



    Wednesday, former US Senator Joe Lieberman declared, "I will just say briefly that the very fact of this hearing is important today because the greatest because the greatest enemy of the people in Camp Liberty is invisibility."

    What was he talking about?

    The Ashraf community.


    Background:  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 2013, 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 1, 2013 -- two years ago.   Adam Schreck (AP) reported back then that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.


    Those in Iraq remain persecuted.

    Lieberman was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday (we covered part of the hearing in the Wednesday's Iraq snapshot).  Senator John McCain is the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jack Reed is the Ranking Member.  Lieberman was one of three witnesses appearing before the Committee.  The other two were  retired US Gen James Jones  and retired US Colonel Wesley Martin.

    The topic was the Ashraf community still trapped in Iraq at Camp Liberty.



    Senator Jeanne Shaheen: [. . . ] and to our witnesses for testifying to what I also believe is a travesty and that we have not lived up to the commitments that we have made to the people who are now at Camp Liberty.  I was in Iraq back in 2009 and we heard about this issue.  And I've had a chance to see the video -- a video of one of the attacks on Camp Liberty and the people being murdered.  So I think it's an area where we need to do much more to address what has happened there.  And I don't understand why people who have relatives here are not able to come and join their relatives and be resettled in America.  So I guess I appreciate that I'm asking you all for a subjective analysis of why the resettlement has been so slow.  But is it just beauractric foot dragging?  Is it because it has not risen to the level of some of the people at State who can make it happen to put pressure on Iraq to release the residents of Camp Liberty?  Or is there something else going on?  And General Jones or Senator Lieberman, I don't know if either of you have a perspective on that?

    General James Jones: Senator, I don't know the answer to that.  All I know is that for the last several years, things that look like they're finally going to move are replaced by another obstacle. The-the delisting of the MEK [a decision then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made under pressure from the US courts] would be the end of it but it was replaced by another listing [a  designation by the Dept of Homeland Security classifying the MEK as "third tier" -- a listing that is in violation of the court order served on then Secretary of State Clinton] -- that was, somewhat, in my view arbitrary.  But it has served to delay the process even more.  I don't think the Iraqi government has been particularly helpful.  They-they play cat and mouse with the residents.  Sometimes they deny food, they deny protection, they turn off the water, they don't take out the trash or garbage for days on end.  It's just a constant problem.  But I really think that the real answer is for someone in authority to just make a decision, "Enough, we're going to do the right thing.  We made a commitment to these people.  We didn't live up to it. It's time to finish it."  And I think it's that simple.  It's a humanitarian gesture. I frankly don't care what the Iranians think about this.  I think it's the right thing to do.

    Senator Jeanne Shaheen:  Senator Lieberman, one of the things I have heard from relatives of people at Camp Liberty that they're very concerned about is this requirement that they renounce MEK and concerned about what that might mean in the future and if somebody could use that and come back to address their ability to come back and live in the United States?  I've not had anybody explain that to me adequately why that is something people are being requested to do.  Have you had anybody explain to you why that's so important?

    Senator Joe Lieberman: I have not.  First, Senator Shaheen, let me thank you for the leadership that you've shown on this matter. You've been a real great advocate for the people in Camp Liberty and I know their families and friends appreciate it a lot.  This requirement of renouncing membership in an organization that is no longer considered a threat or a terrorist organization by any means -- and really there are questions of whether it should ever have been on the list of terrorist organizations seems to me to be very unAmerican.  It's like a -- it's a belief test. It seems contrary to the First Amendment.  And the truth is that there are a lot of people there in Camp Liberty who've had a long history with the MEK.  As I mentioned, they're-they're freedom fighters.  I mean, they were against the Shah [of Iran] for part of the revolution and then they turned against the Ayatollah because they replaced one dictatorship with a worse dictatorship.  So I have never -- to what extent members of Congress can to push the State Dept to explain that or really to rescind that because it's an unfair obstacle and you've made a good point: It's going to raise insecurity in the minds of people coming into the country that somehow this is going to come back three, four, five years from now and they may be subject to deportation. I-I would say to you, Senator King, the State Dept if they were here now would not question the promises made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and then Camp Liberty. 



    Senator King?

    Lieberman was referring to an earlier and lengthy exchange that took place which included King noting that no one from the administration was present to testify.


    Senator Angus King: Several times you gentlemen used the term "the US made assurances," the term "solemn promise,""guarantee," and Col Martin, you mentioned a card.  What did that card say?  I'd like to know specifically: what assurances were delivered, by whom and when?

    Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir.  This was the protected persons status under the Geneva Convention.  And I have a copy of it.  If you give me a second, I can find it real quick.

    Senator Angus King: Well I'd like to know what is says.

    Colonel Wesley Martin:  Okay. 

    Senator Angus King: What I'm searching for here is what are the assurances specifically and who delivered them and when.  I think that's a fair question given that seems to be the premise of this discussion.

    Colonel Wesley Martin: "This card holder is protected person under the agreement of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Should the assigned person" uh, it's a little blurry "should an incident occur, we request that the person contact the [US] military police brigade."  And then it goes on the agreement that they made: "You are being offered your release from control and protection in exchange for your promise to comply with certain regulations."  And it clearly states they are protected, they will not be -- they will not be arrested, they will not be harmed.

    Senator Angus King: What did they have to do?

    Colonel Wesley Martin: And what they had to do, sir, is go ahead and sign an agreement --

    Senator Angus King: That's when they were moved from Ashraf to Liberty?

    Colonel Wesley Martin: No, sir. That was a whole set of different promises.  If I may, sir, Senator McCain, [holding clipped stack of papers], if I could, I'd like to make this submitted for the record.

    Senator Angus King: Well you can make it for the record but I want to know who made assurances -- 


    Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.

    Senator Angus King (Con't): -- and what those assurances were.  And saying they were protected person under the Geneva Convention isn't a promise that the US will take you in.  I just want to understand what the promise is that we're being urged to honor.

    Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.  I understand.  The first one is they would be protected and they would remain at Camp Ashraf.  That was 2004. That was with the US State Dept in agreement with the United States Dept of Defense and [then-Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was the person that finally approved it -- but working with the State Dept.  The person that issued those cards, working with the Embassy, was US Brigadier General David Phillips --

    Senator Angus King: But it is your position that this Geneva Convention of being a protected person constitutes a solemn promise of the United States to look after these people indefinitely? 


    Senator Joe Lieberman: Part of this was -- correct me, Wes -- that these people gave up their arms.  They were disarmed.  And that was part of a post-Saddam [Hussein] policy in Iraq.  Gen Odierno was actually involved in some ways -- not at the higher level he ultimately reached -- but he was on the ground in these negotiations.  I'll tell you, Senator King, to me one of the most compelling -- I've had it happen two or three times -- most compelling moments in my own understanding -- or getting more understanding of what happened here was to hear leaders of the US military -- including Gen Phillips, but that includes people on up who were Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time standing up and saying at a public meeting, 'We made a promise to these people and we broke it.'  I mean -- 

    Senator Angus King: Well all I'm looking for was what was the promise, when was it made and who made it?  Perhaps you could submit that for the record?  That's what I'm interested in.

    Colonel Wesley Martin:  We can do that, sir.

    Senator Angus King: I'd appreciate it.

    Colonel Wesley Martin:  And matter of fact, I just did.

    Senator Angus King: The other -- the other piece that I want to follow up on is that I'm a little uncomfortable with this hearing because we don't have anyone here from the administration.  I'm old enough to realize that they're are always two sides to every story and you've made a very strong case.  In fact, the case is so strong, you have to wonder why isn't this -- what wasn't this taken care of some time ago?  And there must be some reason and I would like to hear -- perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could solicit the comments of the administration, the State Dept or the Dept of Homeland Security to determine why this hasn't been dealt with?  I'm just -- Again, I'm not taking any side here but I-I-I'm uncomfortable not hearing both sides of the situation.

    Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.  If I may, Congressman Dana Roehbacher offered them the chance of what you speak of. I would be at the table along with Colonel Gary Marsh and a representative of the State Dept.  They refused. I would love to sit at a table in front of you ladies and gentlemen and go through the issues with the US State Dept.  Every time we have made that offer, they've refused.  Earlier your question was the promises, the series of promises, especially in 2012 from [Secretary of State's Special Advisor on Camp Ashraf] Dan Fried that these actions would be taken to get them out of harms way.  He came to us.  And General Jones was on the phone calls as well as myself, [former FIB Director] Louis Freeh, [former Pennsylvania] Governor [Tom] Ridge, [former Governor of Pennsylvania] Ed Rendall, [former Governor of Vermont] Howard Dean and many others -- and [retired General and former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Hugh Shelton and others actually.  And 'we will do this, we will do this.'  And even one of the promises: "We're going to be out at that Camp on a continual basis."  And I have that one in writing in this packet.

    Senator Angus King: Well I understand.  And I understand that the circumstances have changed because of Iran's influence in Iraq at this moment and that that raises the level of, as you said, stress in this situation and, perhaps, urgency.  I fully understand that.  I just want to get some of the details and some of the background.  And I want to understand why -- if it's so obvious -- we should do this that it's not being done.  


    King's time had run out.  Committee Chair McCain attempted to clarify a point.


    Chair John McCain:  I will just mention, Senator, that we have been trying for years to get the State Dept to react -- correspondence, meetings -- every method that I know of besides a Congressional hearing -- to try to get this issue resolved and these people who are now in greater and greater danger what we promised them.  And, I've got to say Colonel Martin, you didn't exactly describe it.  That was in return for -- That guarantee was in return for their giving up their weapons and in giving up their weapons we said we would guarantee their safety and gave them, under the Geneva Conventions. But that doesn't mean anything other than that the United States used that as a rationale for guaranteeing their protection.  And it's been going on now for years and -- Go ahead, General, go ahead, please.


    Gen James Jones:  I just wanted to say that we have worked diligently with the administration on a regular basis, on a daily basis.  All of Colonel Martin's reports have been sent both to the National Security Council and the State Dept.  And there are three of us at the table but it's part of a larger group including six former Ambassadors, a former Director of the FBI, a former Attorney General, 8 five-star generals, one former Speaker of the House, four former governors, six members of Congress, one White House Chief of Staff, 



    Some may have been bothered by McCain's clarification/lecture. But at least it wasn't like his September 29th outburst during an Armed Services Committee hearing when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was not prepared to get too outraged (publicly, anyway) over cyber propaganda aimed at US (or 'US' -- most are offshore) companies when the US is doing the exact same thing.  This prompted a loud lecture from McCain that "glass houses" is not an argument for doing nothing.  (Which, for the record, is not the point Clapper was making.  He was attempting to say both sides engage in corporate espionage and he wasn't willing to grandstand on the topic as a result.)

    One of the moments from the hearing that should especially be noted?


    Colonel Wesley Martin:  [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-]Abadi, as I mentioned before, is very weak.  And this is a golden opportunity for the United States to pressure him into allowing the residents to leave and for us to bring all the residents here. As I mentioned, there are enough families throughout the United States, we can absorb all of them. And when you think of all the torment and all the horror  they have had to go through for the past three, four years especially --  well since 2009 -- and yet they still remain loyal hoping that we will be able to do something to lift them out of that tyranny.  It's time to bring them out.  And it's only a matter of time before the fight between [former Iraqi prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-]Maliki and al-Abadi is going to come to a head.  And I fear Maliki has the strong support of the militias, Abadi will be out.





    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)