Tuesday, September 23, 2014

The Mindy Project

Tonight's episode was hilarious.

Rhea Pearlman was on as Danny's hard to please mother.

Danny tried to keep her and Mindy apart despite Mindy's insistence that she could win the woman over.

Well, Mindy was right.  She won Rhea over.

However, she trashed that win when Rhea was lukewarm to Danny's birthday gift (a new stove) while going ga-ga over an airport (stuffed) bear Danny's brother picked up.

When Mindy spoke up in defense of Danny, Rhea hated her.

But later Mindy won her back over.

Meanwhile, Peter was trying to help Morgan whose relationship with Tamra was doing well but was also leading Morgan to give up a number of things that mattered to him.  At one point, Peter was convinced Tamra was faking a dog allergy to force Morgan to give up his 40 dogs -- yes, 40.

Tamra was not faking.  This allowed for a bit of physical comedy and the actors really pulled it off.

I would say this was probably the best episode of The Mindy Project since the show started and I love nearly every episode of this show so that's saying something.


This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Tuesday, September 23, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, bombings continue, John Kerry points fingers at others, Barack suffers from mission creep, US army prepares for a new headquarters in Iraq, and much more.

Michael Crowley (Time magazine) documents the US mission creep in Iraq:


From a podium in the White House’s state dining room on the night of Aug. 7, Obama gravely described his authorization of two military operations. One was to stop ISIS’s advance on the Iraqi city of Erbil, which Obama described as a threat to Americans stationed there. The other was to rescue thousands of Yezidi people besieged by ISIS fighters atop Sinjar Mountain.
[. . .]
On a Sunday afternoon ten days later, the White House quietly issued a statement announcing air strikes with the goal of liberating the Mosul dam from the clutches of ISIS militants. 
[. . .]
Then, on Sept. 7, came word of still another mission: A Pentagon statement said the U.S. was now bombing ISIS around the Haditha dam, in western Iraq—far from Erbil, Sinjar and Mosul. By now, American drones and planes had conducted about 150 strikes in the country. The U.S. was conducting a de facto air campaign against ISIS in support of Iraq’s government.


Crowley continues with his documentation but for those who need a single example of the mission creep, Michelle Tan (Army Times) reports:

As the U.S. expands its war against the Islamic State, the Army is preparing to deploy a division headquarters to Iraq.
Officials have not identified the division that will deploy — the first division headquarters to go to Iraq since the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.
An official announcement is expected in the coming days. But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno recently confirmed the Army “will send another division headquarters to Iraq to control what we’re doing there, a small headquarters.”


Yeah, that never-ending Iraq War is expanding.  David Corn(nuts) and all the other trashy whores can toss aside ethics and offer justifications but the reality is there for anyone who wants to see it.



Flash from Mexico
The Toreadors have all turned gay
Roman whores have quit to seek a better way
Dope has undermined the morale of
The Buckingham Palace guards
Motorcycle gangs ride naked down Hollywood Boulevard

If through all the madness
We can stick together
We're safe and sound
The world's just inside out and upside down
 -- "Safe and Sound," written by Carly Simon and Jacob Brackman, first appears on Carly's Hotcakes

In the crazy, upside down world we live in, Christi Parsons and WJ Hennigan (Los Angeles Times) can report:


 President Obama said Tuesday that he will "do what's necessary" to fight the Sunni Muslim extremists targeted in a fierce round of U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria and that he'll do so with the support of regional partners whose coordinated bombing makes it "clear to the world that this is not America's fight alone."
Speaking just before his departure for New York to meet with world leaders at the United Nations, Obama said the bombings he ordered overnight had the support of Arab coalition partners.

So how long does this crazy last?

The 'plan' is nothing but bombing.

If the US wasn't taking part in the bombings in Iraq and Syria (along with France), the White House would be decrying these actions, would be insisting that the country or countries carrying them out needed to be punished.

In what world is bombing a country a 'plan' for peace?


In New York today, NINA notes, Iraq's Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari met up with the Danish Foreign Minister Martin Legurd.  And Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is in New York today for the United Nations' General Assembly.

Iraq's President Fuad Masum didn't arrive in New York today.  Because he was already there. All Iraq News notes he arrived on Monday.

With so much of the government out of the country, maybe it's good that Iraq now has three vice presidents?

Of course, with Nouri al-Maliki being one, that means the other two, Osama al-Nujaafi and Ayad Allawi, must spend the bulk of their time ensuring Nouri's not carrying out a coup.


Two Iraqi officials who aren't in New York?  The Minister of Defense and the Minister of Interior.

They're not in New York but that's mainly due to the fact that those two posts have still not been filled.

Nothing like leaving the security posts empty to scream, "We are committed to fighting the Islamic State!"

All Iraq News reports MP Hamid al-Khudhari states these positions must be filled and that "there must be Ministers to run the security file."  Meanwhile Nouri's State of Law coalition is whining because they want Hadi al-Amiri to be the nominee and Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has not nominated al-Amiri.  MP Salah al-Jubouri tells NINA, "There is a need to name the ministers of defense and interior, because of the security problems in the country, whichmakes it imperative for the Prime Minister to resolve this file in nearest opportunity."  He notes Parliament begins a 2 week vacation starting September 26th and he doesn't expect the positions to be filled until after the break.


With rumors that the United Kingdom's about to join France and the US in bombing Iraq, there's apparently no rush for Iraq to prepare their own defense team and plan, let alone put people in charge of executing it.


Why were they in New York?  Because Iraq will be the topic Wednesday at the United Nations.Security Council meeting with US President Barack Obama acting as Chair of the special session.

That's tomorrow.  All Iraq News reports, "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday blamed Islamic State militants and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for destroying cultural treasures in Syria and Iraq describing it as 'ugly, savage, inexplicable, valueless barbarism'."

Who's the 'barbarian'?  Who sent war planes into a foreign country to bomb the country?

And having done that, is the US government really in a place to slam others for destruction taking place in Iraq?

Is the White House now insisting that US planes are dropping Nerf footballs on Iraq because that's about the only way US bombs aren't also "destroying cultural treasures."


Today, John Kerry insisted:

 Now obviously there are a range of terrorist groups that concern us, and we are laser focused on combatting them. But we gather this week to discuss as priority a threat that has a particular resonance for every country in this room, and that’s ISIL.
ISIL is an organization that knows no bounds, as it has proven. It brutalizes women and girls and sells them off as slaves to jihadists. It forces grown men to their knees, ties their hands behind their back, and shoots them in the head. Fed by illicit funding and a stream of foreign fighters that have come, regrettably, from many of the countries around this table – mine included – it has seized territory, and it has attempted to undertake announced genocide against minority groups like the Yezidis. This kind of barbarity simply has no place in the modern world. And these coldblooded killers, masquerading as a religious movement, need to be stopped.

Now President Obama has laid out a coordinated global strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL. And we’ve assembled a broad coalition. And last night, by conducting strikes against ISIL, targets inside Syria, we took another major step towards getting the job done. But it will require enormous cooperation and perseverance by everybody.


Aslumaria notes that John Kerry is insisting that many Arab countries have joined what Mike's dubbed The Spread The Blame Around Coalition.

How many?

The State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted the answer:

AP proclaims, "World leaders meet at UN facing turmoil from multiple crises, with few solutions."

Huh?

There was no talk of solutions, just of bombings.

I've castigated the press for failure to cover the political issues in Iraq -- especially since Barack has repeatedly insisted that Iraq's only solution is a political one, not a military one.

But what has the White House offered thus far except a military response and focusing on garnering support for that?

Exactly who works on the political process and when?


The State Dept released the following today:

 SECRETARY KERRY: Mr. President, you go right ahead.
PRESIDENT [FUAD] MASUM: (Via interpreter) Our meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State was very positive and very fruitful. We have discussed several issues, especially the situation in Iraq and the region. And also, we specifically focused on this terrorist organization known as ISIL. We have common views concerning this issue, and also we believe that the latest session of the UN Security Council was remarkable, and it gives peace and – gives assurances to people in the region that this threat will be dealt with.
Therefore, we would like to thank the countries that have come together in order to support Iraq and to stand by Iraq and support it in its war against terrorism, which is a new threat in this area.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Delighted to be here with President Masum and with Foreign Minister Jafari, who have already proven to be important partners in this effort, and I appreciate the very constructive meeting that we’ve just had to talk about where we are.
Before I get started, I want to just say a few words about our decision to conduct strikes against ISIL targets in Syria, and also against seasoned al-Qaida operatives in Syria, who are known as the Khorasan Group. We have been very clear from the beginning we will not allow geography or borders to prevent us from being able to take action against ISIL, and we will not allow them to have a safe haven where they think they can have sanctuary against accountability. We will hold them responsible for their grotesque atrocities, and we will not allow these terrorists to find a safe haven anywhere. That is President Obama’s resolve.
If left unchecked, ISIL is not only a threat to the stability of Iraq and to the region, but it is a threat to countries elsewhere, including here. From the beginning President Obama has been very clear that this is not America’s fight alone. ISIL poses a threat to not just Iraq and Syria but to the region as a whole, and the region has to be a leader in this effort in order to fight back.
I want to commend President Masum and Prime Minister Abadi for the critically important steps that Iraq has taken to help form a government, and it is obviously important that they continue to take those steps, and we talked about some of that today. They are committed to doing so.
But they’ve also been, importantly, reaching out to their neighbors and helping to build this coalition. More than 50 countries have now agreed to join this effort to combat ISIL, including the Arab countries that joined us last night in taking military action in Syria. The overall effort is going to take time, there are challenges ahead, but we are going to do what is necessary to take the fight to ISIL, to begin to make it clear that terrorism, extremism does not have a place in the building of civilized society. And we will work with our friends from Iraq in order to make certain that their choice to move forward in a democratic and viable way will bear fruit and be supported by the international community.

Thank you.


No, thank you, John.  And could you explain to us why the head of US diplomacy could only talking bombings and war while offering some vague salute to vague events of over two weeks ago?

There's been no political progress in Iraq overseen by the president of Iraq. There's been no progress at all and, in three days, the Parliament breaks for a two week vacation.

Where's the progress?

Where's the work on that?


If you don't get that there are serious political problems to address, you need to read Mustafa Habib's piece for Niqash:
Recently there have been three major issues that the different political blocs in the Parliament have been working on.

Firstly, a new internal bylaw to regulate the work of the prime minister's department. This is something that Iraq's last Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, had refused to even discuss because, one imagines, such a bylaw would have reduced the many powers he tried to keep solely for his executive branch.

The second issue centres on a steering committee for all of the parties that identify as Shiite Muslim majority, which work in an alliance in Parliament. The committee would bring about more unified and quicker decision making among the alliance. In the past, al-Maliki had also refused to help form such a committee because once again, it would have taken away his power.
The third issue is possibly the most important and concerns a number of decisions made by al-Maliki shortly before he was ousted by al-Abadi. The new government wants to know what all of these were – some remain unclear – and they want them annulled or reversed.
This series of decisions includes al-Maliki making some important appointments, handing out sensitive positions to his closest allies and even relatives, as well as withdrawing money from the national coffers.
Early in September al-Maliki appointed one of his closest allies, Ali al-Allaq, to head Iraq's Central Bank. This came at the same time as the Central Bank's former head, Sinan al-Shabibi, was sentenced to seven years in jail on charges of corruption.
It is generally thought that because al-Shabibi, an economist, had resisted al-Maliki's attempts to interfere in Central Bank business and not allowed him to withdraw money from the bank's reserves, that al-Maliki cooked up the corruption charges in order to have him removed from the post.

There have already been calls to reverse the decisions made against al-Shabibi. 
Other appointments made by al-Maliki include appointing his spokesperson, Ali al-Mousawi, as director general at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, making the head of his financial office, Dea'a al-Quraishi, the Deputy Minister of Planning and appointing an MP from his own party, Ali al-Shlah, as chairman of the board of trustees at the national broadcaster, the Iraqi Media Network, which also runs the Iraqiya TV channel.
Current MPs say that behind the scenes, al-Maliki also appointed dozens more of his closest allies and followers into senior jobs in sensitive positions. Other job holders were forced to retire, army officers loyal to al-Maliki were unjustifiably promoted and other army officers were paid above and beyond their salaries by his office.




There are serious issues to address and there's no excuse for the failure of US outlets to cover that reality.


One of the few figures with national standing in Iraq to remain in Iraq is Ammar al-Hakim.  All Iraq News notes that the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq met today with the leader of Goran, Nicherwan Mustafa, to discuss outstanding issues between Baghdad's central government and the Kurdistan Regional Government.

Under the 'leadership' of thug Nouri al-Maliki, relationships between the Kurds and the central government out of Baghdad soured, to put it mildly.  The conflict which received the most western press was the conflict over oil.  In the continued absence of a national gas and oil law, the Kurds exercised their right to do with their oil as they saw fit.  This alarmed Nouri and the State Dept.  Another conflict was Nouri's refusal, in both of his terms as prime minister, to implement Article 140 of the Constitution.  Oil-rick Kirkuk is claimed by both Baghdad and the KRG.  Article 140 is how the situation gets resolved -- census and referendum.  Victoria Nuland and other spokespersons who were so bothered by the selling or potential selling of oil by the Kurds never expressed a sad note over the refusal of Nouri to obey the Constitution.

They also didn't decry Nouri withholding federal funds from the KRG.  That move was an attempt to blackmail the Kurds on the oil issue.  Nouri also called the Kurds "terrorists" and supporters of "terrorists" and much more.  Nouri refused to respect their territorial integrity and frequently sent the SWAT forces into disputed areas which only heightened tensions.


There's much more and there's much to sort out.

It may not be as 'sexy' as war planes but it should still capture the attention of the western press.

Al Mada notes KRG President Barzani called for Iraq's new government to listen to the Kurds and that KRG President is calling for the three presidences -- Iraq's president Fuad Masum, Speaker of Parliament .  Salim al-Jubouri and Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi -- to visit the KRG.

Over on the violence front,  Alsumaria reports a Sadr City car bombing left 14 people dead and sixty-seven more injured.  All Iraq News quotes a security source stating the bombing was "in front of Muntadher police station."  Alsumaria reports a Baghdad roadside bombing left two police officers injured.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 103 killed in Tuesday's violence.


In some possible good news regarding bombings (on the ground, not dropped from war planes), Alsumaria quotes a senior official at the Ministry of the Interior, Adnan Hadi al-Sadi, declared that "sophisticated equipment" would soon be utilized in Iraq to detect bombs.

This would be a huge improvement.

For those who've forgotten, once upon a time a device was invented to find lost golf balls on the golf course.  It couldn't even do that.  But a hack and a crook decided he'd market it as a device that could detect bombs.  You held the magic wand by a car, for example, and ran in place and if the wand moved, there was a bomb!!!!

The US military was publicly calling out this 'magic wand' in 2008 but Nouri al-Maliki, then prime minister, kept spending a fortune on this device.

Even after the man selling it was arrested, Nouri continued to insist it be used.  Even after the man was tried and convicted in a British court.

Even as late as this summer, Nouri was still insisting the magic wands be used.


Because stupidity is not unique to one nation, we'll note this Tweet highlighting US government stupidity:




















    •  






    on No comments:

    Monday, September 22, 2014

    TV and the sexist attacks on Debra Messing

    Please check out these features at Third:

  • TV: The pack goes after Debra Messing and mothers...
  • TV Roundtable

    • In the first one, Ava and C.I. take on the sexist attacks on Debra Messing's new show The Mysteries of Laura.  It's a really important piece of writing.

    And it's why they are the strongest TV writers online.

    No one was calling out the sexism.

    This wasn't one writer (like Alessandra Stanley's questionable piece on Shonda Rhimes), this was multiple writers and they were using sexism to try to tear down Debra's show.

    And who stepped up to the plate?

    Who called it out?

    And who documented it?

    Ava and C.I.

    The second piece is a roundtable.

    I think I have one sentence in it.

    We were all tired and half asleep.

    Dona moderated so that Jim, Jess and Ty could try to save a piece we did on Iraq and one on the NSA and I forget what the other was.  None of them were saved.

    But we did the TV roundtable focusing on what will happen this fall.  And what we'll cover at the community sites.


    This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



    Monday, September 22, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Falluja continues to be bombed, Barack's bombing have had no real impact on Iraq and much more.



    David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."  The two go on to note that it may have stopped or diverted a "march toward Baghdad" but the bombings have not stopped the Islamic State which has seized Sichar.

    They write that today "the government acknowledged that it had lost control of the small town of Sichar" and they note the large number of Iraqi soldiers the Islamic State continues to kill.



    Where do you go from there?



    Let's go to a former US President: Jimmy Carter who declared today in video posted at WoodTV.com:


     Because when ISIS forces go into a city and take it over and then the United States goes over there with bombers and drops bombs, we are likely to kill more civilians than we do ISIS members.  And that's why it's very necessary to have our own people on the ground that can give us -- give us accurate information about exactly where to let a missile land or a bomb land to make sure it kills the ISIS terrorist instead of normal civilians.



    At least Jimmy noted civilian casualties.

    Because civilian casualties -- though overlooked by the press and ignroed by the White House -- do exist.


    Sunday, NINA reports, the military's (continued) bombing of Falluja's residential neighborhoods left 1 civilian dead and ten more injured.  Monday, mortar and rocket attacks left 7 civilians dead ("including a woman and a child") and twelve more people injured.


    Again, David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."



    It's not working.



    Is it legal?



    Probably not.



    On this week's Law and Disorder Radio,  an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) topics addressed included  the legality of Barack's current war actions.


     Heidi Boghosia:  Michael, the US recently began bombing the Islamic State or ISIL with the promise that there will be no ground troops. Let's talk a bit about the legality of this.

     Michael Ratner:  I think the legality of this is important but of course the first thing is this was a promise not to use any ground troops that was -- Obama made that publicly -- and a few days later, perhaps two days later, Gen Martin Dempsey, who's head of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, said he would not rule out the use of ground troops and said, that if necessary, he would recommend that to the president.  The Times then wrote a very strong editorial saying, here we go again, a slippery slope into a ground war, an endless war in the Middle East.  Not that I didn't think they had ground troops in there already, they did.  They called them advisors.  Who knows what they are doing?  I know my experience with "advisors" whether back in Vietnam or El Salvador is they don't just stand there with no weapons.  They often accompany the troops.  They give advice. And, if fired upon, they have the right to fire back. 

     Heidi Boghosian:  And are they -- the advisors -- sort of top level military personnel?  Who are they exactly?

    Michael Ratner:  I don't think they're necessarily top level  Some are, but some are training units, etc. So I think already we are having a certain number of so-called "ground troops" there.  But certainly, Gen Dempsey's statements indicate that we're only seeing the beginning and, as usual, the US population is "being lulled into" another major ground war in the Middle East.  One question as lawyers -- and this is technically a lawyers' show -- is the question of the legality of what the president is doing.  I've spent -- a number of us have -- a lot of our lives trying to restrain US war powers and the US, particularly the president or the Congress together, going to war around the world.  And it's been a task that's been particularly unsuccessful starting with Vietnam where we brought case after case and only at the end of the war really did Congress finally act to restrict the president, after there were secret wars carried out in Cambodia, in Laos, not just Vietnam.  As the devastation became too great, as the opposition here became great, and, really, as the Vietnamese started to win the war. 

     Heidi Boghosian:  Now, Michael, lets just give a basic lesson in government structure.  Right now, what could Congress do to restrain the president?

     Michael Ratner:  Let's step back one second, Heidi, and that is where I'm going.  Right now, the president has not asked for any authority from Congress to either bomb targets in Iraq that he claims are Islamic State targets or, presumably, if they've begun it, bombing in Syria -- again targets that they claim are Islamic State targets.  He has not asked for any authority.  He has , of course, had to use some funding that Congress, I think,  will  approve if he asks for more.  That is not considered "giving authority" by Congress just because they fund a war, that's some specific legislation.  But let's talk about what the president should be required to do and essentially how my office, other people, and I've litigated a dozen case around the world have utterly failed to be able to force the president to obey the Constitution or to force the president and the Congress to obey the UN Charter which also has a prohibition on the use of force. Coming out of Vietnam, Congress did a sort of mea culpa.  They said, 'Well, the president dragged us into this war.  We passed this Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was this open-ended resolution that the president said he could do whatever he wanted in Vietnam.  And he kept fighting the war based on this one broad authorization the Congress gave him over a false incident that took place when one Vietnamese boat supposedly -- but did not -- actually fire on a US ship.  President went to the Congress and they passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. They fought that war for years based on that open-ended resolution. 
    Heidi Boghosian: Sort of like the Weapons of Mass Destruction justification. 

     Michael Ratner:  Like that exactly.  That resolution, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, you could liken to the authority that Congress gave the president to go to war in Afghanistan called The Authorization To Use Military Force.  But let's keep stepping back to Vietnam.  So after Vietnam, it cost some 50,000-plus  American lives, possibly 2 million Vietnamese lives, the devastation of our country politically and in the streets but particularlly of course in Vietnam where it's still paying a very heavy cost from Agent Orange to the numbers of people killed.  So Congress then passes what's called a War Powers Resolution.  People here that bandied about a lot.  What the War Powers Resolution did was Congress said, "Look it, we don't want to be in the situation of Vietnam again.'  The president, yes, is required to go to Congress before he can go to war with any country.  That's Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.  The framers were very clear, 'We don't want a president making war on his own.  We want war to be harder to make not easier.  We think it's harder to make if the people who are actually representatives of people and who are paying the costs and are losing their children will have to consent to that war.

    And we'll pick up from there later in the week (hopefully tomorrow).


    Michael wondered about Syria and bombing and today the State Dept's Brett McGurk Tweeted:



    Meanwhile, David D. Kirkpatrick and Omar al-Jawoshy (New York Times) report, "After six weeks of American airstrikes, the Iraqi government's forces have scarcely budged the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State from their hold on more than a quarter of the country, in part because many critical Sunni tribes remain on the sidelines."

    So why is it still taking place?

    At what point is Barack's 'plan' supposed to kick in?

    Because it's a failure right now.

    In other news, The Lead with Jake Tapper (CNN) reports:
    In an interview on CBS News' "60 Minutes" that aired Sunday evening, Panetta told Scott Pelley that he "really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
    The United States withdrew its last combat troops from Iraq in 2011 after an agreement could not be reached with Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki about residual U.S. troops.

    But former CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony Zinni (Ret.), who opposed the Iraq War in 2003, disagrees with Panetta.
    "If you're using that as a reason that that would have prevented what ISIS did, I think you're after the wrong rationale," Zinni said in an interview with CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper."


    Wait, I'm confused, Zinni opposed the Iraq War?  'Cause I didn't see his ass at any rallies or marches.  I did see him on TV.  Not saying, "Don't go to war."  Not, after it started, saying, "Stop the war!"

    He never did that.  It's a myth, it's a lie.  He's a War Whore.  He's been exposed as such.  He retired long ago and, as a New York Times expose a few years back noted, he can be bought.

    Now if this is all too much, if you've been raised on fairy tales, click here for a lengthy -- very lengthy -- 2003 interview he gave to The NewsHour (PBS).  Find in there one time when he says the war is wrong -- not illegal, just wrong.

    He never does.

    He quibbles about this or that but the myth of him as 'against the war' -- this man who supported Bully Boy Bush's "surge" in Iraq -- are just outright lies -- mainly told by little boys who need a daddy figure.

    And, for the record, saying in October 2002 that the US needed to send more troops than Bully Boy Bush was planning into Iraq is not anti-war.

    That same month, he also delivered a speech.  From The History Commons:
    In a speech during the Middle East Institute’s annual conference, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni presents an extensive argument against the Bush administration’s plans for invading Iraq. He makes several salient points. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet In order for the planned military operation against Iraq to be successful it must have international support. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet In order to ensure a quick war, the US must use overwhelming force. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Civilian casualties, collateral damage, and destruction of the infrastructure must be kept to a minimum. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Israeli involvement would create massive instability. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet The invasion must not provoke a reaction from the Arab world. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet The transition to a post-Saddam Iraq will not be easy. He explains: “If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don’t understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath-suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily.” [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet The burden of the war and post-war reconstruction must be shared. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet It will not be possible to simply impose a democracy on Iraq. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Anti-American militant groups cannot be defeated by military means alone. He asks several questions that are rarely asked in public: “Why are young people flocking to these causes? Could the issues be political, economic and social? Could disenfranchisement or oppression be what drives them rather than the religious fanaticism that may be the core element to only a few? How do we cooperate to fix these problems? How do we help a part of the world that’s trying to come to grips with modernity?” [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet He questions whether an invasion is even necessary, instead suggesting that there are numerous other issues to deal with of higher priority. [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    bullet Finally, he says that violence and war are not the solution. “Like those generals who were far greater than I am, I don’t think that violence and war is the solution. There are times when you reluctantly, as a last resort, have to go to war. But as a general that has seen war,… I will tell you that in my time, I never saw anything come out of fighting that was worth the fight.” [Zinni, 10/10/2002]
    Entity Tags: Anthony Zinni, Bush administration (43)
    Category Tags: Internal Opposition, The 'Generals' Revolt'


    October 10, 2002: Bush Officials, Journalists Invited to Visit Purported Iraqi WMD Site; White House Refuses

    Edit event  
    Iraqi Minister Abdul Tawab Mullah Hawaish, who is in charge of Iraq’s weapons programs, invites reporters and members of the Bush administration to visit two of the alleged WMD sites, Furat and Nasser al-Azim. Bush had referred to the sites in his October 7 speech (see October 7, 2002). “The American administration are invited to inspect these sites,” Hawaish says, “As I am responsible for the Iraqi weapons programs, I confirm here that we have no weapons of mass destruction and we have no intention to produce them…. I am saying here and now that we do not have weapons of mass destruction and we do not have programs to develop them.” [BBC, 10/10/2002; Reuters, 10/10/2002] But the White House rejects the offer. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says, “This matter is not up to Iraq…. It is… up to the United Nations to decide.” [White House, 10/10/2002] Reporters, however, accept the offer and tour the Nasser State Establishment, a facility that Iraq claims produces goods for civilian use as well as components for conventional weapons. [Reuters, 10/10/2002]
    Entity Tags: Ari Fleischer, Bush administration (43), Abdul Tawab Mullah Hawaish
    Category Tags: Alleged WMDs



    That was an anti-war speech?

    Have we all gotten that stupid?

    No.  And, writing in January 2004, Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) called the general a "critic" of the war, not antiwar.

    As far Zinni's assertions, I believe Panetta was arguing that several thousand US troops on the ground in Iraq would have given them influence over Nouri al-Maliki.  I'm opposed to US troops on the ground in Iraq -- or in Iraqi air space -- for any reason.  But I'm not going to lie about Leon or pretend he said something that he didn't.

    A lot of people are willing to lie about anything.  As we noted last night 'journalist' David Corn went on MSNBC's Up to bray like a neocon.  This is different, he insists, this violence is needed.



    The perfect response to Corn's crap comes via Twitter.





  • 51m
    Poor Iraq, keeps getting beaten up by her American boyfriend, who then cradles her saying "Baby, I'm gonna do good this time, I swear."
    Expand










    • Prime Minister Dr. Haider Al Abadi Receives Australian Defense Minister September 22, 2014 

      Prime Minister Dr. Haider al-Abadi met in his office today the Australian Defense Minister Mr. David Johnston. During the meeting, they discussed security cooperation between Iraq and Australia to counter the threat of the ISIS criminal gangs, and they also discussed the international efforts to combat terrorism and its impact on Iraq, on the region and on the world. The Prime Minister stressed the importance of respecting Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity and non-interference in its internal affairs, which is one of the principles of our efforts in the coming period. Dr. Al Abadi reiterated the rejection of any interference in Iraq affairs indicating that our security forces and the forces of the popular mobilization have the ability to win the battle against the enemy. For his part, Mr. Johnston expressed his country's readiness to assist Iraq in the field of security and provide all kinds of assistance needed by the Iraqi government. Media Office of the Prime Minister Dr. Haider Al Abadi


    The prime minister's office issued the above.








    wbai
    law and disorder radio
    michael s. smith
    heidi boghosian
    michael ratner
    on No comments:

    Saturday, September 20, 2014

    The cowardly Ralph Nader

    For weeks now, I've made a point of noting Ralph Nader's silence on Iraq, slamming him for it.

    He's finally written about it.

    His writing is even more embarrassing than his silence was.

    Where does he call out Barack Obama?

    No where.

    He repeatedly slams George W. Bush.

    But no slams for Barry.

    Who does Nader think the president is right now?

    I voted for him in 2000, in 2004 and in 2008.

    I never felt my vote was wasted or that, for example, he stole the White House from Al Gore.

    That's because the person I voted for stood up.

    Now Ralph's just a craven and cowardly old man.

    I have no use for him.

    Ralph's a coward.

    Some have e-mailed saying Ralph isn't the only one silent.

    No, he's not.  But he's supposed to be a leader.

    Equally true, though most tend to ignore this, Ralph is Arab-American.  As such, as US war on an Arab state sort of demands he weighs in.

    I'm done with Ralph.

    I'm done with bullying him to stand up.  I'm done with reading him.  I'm done with hoping he can find his spine.

    He's a miserable excuse for a leader.  He ends his latest column with the 'plan' of change coming via some millionaires and billionaires investing in the left.

    Can Ralph's politics get any more hollow?


    Thursday, we offered theme posts on meat:

  • Mikey Likes It!
    Meatloaf
    1 day ago
  • Thomas Friedman is a Great Man
    Hamburgers
    1 day ago
  • Ann's Mega Dub
    Crab
    1 day ago
  • Like Maria Said Paz
    Turkey
    1 day ago
  • SICKOFITRADLZ
    Ham
    1 day ago
  • Ruth's Report
    Chicken
    1 day ago
  • Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
    fish sticks
    1 day ago
  • Trina's Kitchen
    The veggie burger at Burger King
    1 day ago
  • Oh Boy It Never Ends
    Shrimp
    1 day ago

  • Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
    Rib eye
    1 day ago 


    • This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



    Saturday, September 20, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Moqtada al-Sadr's followers protest in Baghdad, former US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta voices disagreement with some of the administration's actions, Media Matters rushes in to whore and minimize Panetta's statements, NYT finds it hilarious that some Iraqis believe the Islamic State is a CIA creation, and much more.

    Calling someone a "stupid ____" really isn't why this site exists.  IAVA had an important announcement and we ran it Friday evening  and I pushed back the snapshot to let that get attention (we'll also include it at the end of the snapshot) and in the hopes that I could do something other than call someone a "stupid ____."

    Too bad.  It's been nearly 24 hours and I'm still with the reaction.

    Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has joined former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in criticizing US President Barack Obama's actions on Iraq.

    Professional whore David Brock created Media Matters insisting it would be a media watchdog.  It's a media watchdog in the same sense that David Brock was a reporter in the 90s -- when he was making crap up and hiding the truth about Clarence Thomas.  For many on the center and on the left, there's been an awakening as to what an embarrassment Media Matters is and the reality there is there will be no employment for many after money stops propping the propaganda outlet up.

    But to the stupid ___, Sophia Tesfaye writes for Media Matters about Panetta's remarks and right wing coverage of it:

    But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.

    You stupid ___.

    We don't have time for your ignorance or your whoring or whatever it is.

    We don't have time.

    We can't afford you.

    We don't have that luxury.

    You're a stupid little ____ who's never done a moment's work in your life, get your lazy ass over to the Senate Armed Services Committee website.  Go the hearings archive.  Go to the hearing for November 15, 2011.


    I've never streamed it.  I've never had to.  We were there.

    Doing the damn work required.


    This community covered that hearing in depth -- see the November 15th "Iraq snapshot," the November 16th "Iraq snapshot" -- excerpt below from the November 16th snapshot -- and the November 17th "Iraq snapshot" and Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally's "The costs (Wally)" and Kat's "Who wanted what?" for real time coverage.


    For those late to the party, this hearing was after Nouri's "no" to US troops.

    Leon Panetta was one of the witnesses.  (As disclosed before I've known Leon for many years, decades.  I like Leon and consider him a friend.)

    Do the work.

    From that hearing and other coverage of that time period, Nouri al-Maliki -- then US-installed prime minister in Iraq -- said "no."

    (This angered and surprised the White House which had installed him to a second term the year prior.)

    Was it a hard "no."

    No.

    Leon states in the hearing his confidence that they will come to an agreement, possibly in the next few months (January 2012 is what Leon thought) and this is agreed to/signed off by his co-witness Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff).

    Why could they be so confident?

    Because the problem, as Senator John McCain, Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Lindsey Graham note in the hearing, is a numbers problem.

    It's not about any troops, it's about the number of troops.

    This is backed up in reports and interviews over the years since which document and detail that keeping US troops in Iraq would require Iraqi officials taking a hit with the Iraqi people so they weren't willing to do it for a few thousand.  3,000 wasn't worth it to them.  They wanted 20,000 to 25,000.

    Nouri and other officials would back that.  This was told to the White House, it was told to the State Dept, it was told to visiting members of Congress.

    It wasn't told to the spin whores of Media Matters or, if it was, they were too busy lying about some other event in an attempt to spin it pretty for Barack.

    Media Matters is an embarrassment for those of us on the left.

    It repeatedly lies and misinforms.

    In the early 90s, David Brock shot to fame as the piece of filth and human trash who attacked Anita Hill in print and told one lie after another about her.  He then proceeded to do the same with 'trooper gate' and other fake Clinton scandals.

    He supposedly had an 'awakening' and changed as the 90s were drawing to an end.

    No, he didn't.

    All that happened was his hags -- ____ hags -- on the right made clear that they didn't consider him a real person because he was gay.  They considered him a freak and a mutation and they would tolerate him because he could 'dish' but that was it.

    Realizing that no matter how many takedowns he did for the right, he'd always be trotting through the servants' entrance while the GOP's media blond brigade  entered through the front door, David started looking for a way to switch to the left where being gay is not seen (by most of us) as a big deal or strange or anything to hide.  He needed a hag, this is David Brock after all, and pill popping Naomi Wolf filled that role (as she has so very often in her sad little life).  She brought him over to the left, gave him a coming out party.

     But he hadn't changed.

    He didn't think what he did was wrong.

    Read the crap he wrote at the time -- first for Esquire and then in dull and plodding book.

    He yammers away about how nice Hillary Clinton is or this person or that person.

    I'm not disputing Hillary's nice.  She can be quite charming when she wants to be.

    But what David Brock pre-'conversion' did was wrong.

    Not wrong because sweet little Hillary didn't deserve mean things said about her.

    When he was ready to convert, he turned it into personalities.

    Which is probably so many on my side (the left) bought into it.  We're not really encouraged to think and explore on the left.  The easiest way to switch sides in a game of Red Rover is to cozy up to personalities.

    He doesn't atone or apologize or acknowledge that what he did wasn't journalism.  That should be the heart of his book and his Esquire article.  (Let's be really honest about that Esquire article because there's a myth that it let that issue of Esquire sell.  No, it did not.

    And it shouldn't matter whether Hillary's sweet or mean.

    Lying and spinning to help the GOP was wrong not because Hillary got hurt but because it was lying and spinning.

    By failing to address that reality, by failing to address the real victims (which would be journalism, democracy and the American people, not Hillary who can and has handled bad press), David Brock was able to move over to the left and do the same thing he had done before but from the left.

    And it has sullied us and it has dumbed us down.

    We thought it was a way to win.  It's a losing strategy like so much that the Democratic Party pursues in the name of 'realism' -- don't you love how 'realism' is so 'real' that it requires lies and spin to support it.

    It never should have happened.

    The left should have told David Brock what Barbra Streisand's character declares in Up The Sandbox, "No, we do not have to become more like you, sir.  We only have to become more like ourselves."

    Maybe then we'd fight for things that matter?

    Maybe we'd be fighting to expand Social Security and Medicare and not forever attempting to keep it off the chopping blocks, not having to waste all our time lobbying 'our' senators and House representatives not to destroy the safety net.


    We can't do that.

    We can't fight for We The People when we're constantly using all of energies to prop up, lie for and excuse a corporatist War Hark like Barack Obama.

    But that is what Media Matters does and that is what we've done on the left for the last six years.

    And I largely ignore them.

    They can whore for elections and I don't give a damn, they're useless to me (and actually useless to elections but we can discuss that another time).  But now they're bring the whoring to Iraq.

    They need to scurry back to the sewer they stepped out of.

    Sophia Tesfaye hypocritically slams some right-winger:

    But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.


    I don't give a damn what the New York Times reported in October 2011.

    Not when Leon Panetta, the person in question, testified to Congress, after the 'no,' on November 15th:



    Senator Joe Lieberman:  Let me, Secretary Panetta, pick up from that point. I've heard from friends in Iraq -- Iraqis -- that Prime Minister Maliki said at one point that he needed to stop the negotiations -- leave aside for one moment the reasons -- but he was prepared to begin negotiations again between two sovereign nations -- the US and Iraq -- about some troops being in Iraq after January 1st.  So that's what I've heard from there. But I want to ask you from the administration point of view. I know that Prime Minister Maliki is coming here in a few weeks to Washington. Is the administration planning to pursue further discussions with the Iraqi government about deploying at least some US forces in Iraq after the end of this year?


    Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are.  Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations.  We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there.  But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together?


    No doubt like her wardrobe and mental faculties, Sophia's sources are limited and dated.

    She slams some right-winger for leaving out something from October 2011 while she leaves out Leon's own pertinent statements made to Congress in November 2011.


    I attended multiple Congressional hearings this week.  We only covered one here.  I might pick up one or two next week, might not.  The plan was to cover one in what was supposed to be Friday's snapshot.  But we can't do that when Media Matters -- and all it's crap ass 'ditto heads' online -- are spreading lies and falsehoods.

    Now they do that every day and we usually look the other way.  But this is about Iraq.  And on Sunday, Leon Panetta's interview with 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley airs on CBS:

     ISIS seized a third of Iraq that the U.S. secured with ten years of sacrifice. In an interview for 60 Minutes, Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said ISIS flourished because the U.S. got involved in Syria too late and left Iraq too soon. On the 47th season premiere Sunday, "60 Minutes" will report from Iraq and Syria on ISIS -- what it is, what it wants, and how to defeat it.


    Now people can disagree with Leon's take (I sometimes do, I consider him a friend, not a guru or a shaman), but they need to have the facts right going in.

    Media Matters isn't about facts.  David Brock learned (on the right) that he could influence the narrative and rally the mob by lying and spinning.  That's what Brock does now -- from the left.

    To evaluate whether or not you agree with Leon's take on things, you need to know the basic facts.

    Panetta's remarks to CBS News' 60 Minutes follow Robert Gates' remarks to CBS This Morning earlier this week (link is text and video) where Gates noted his belief that Barack's plan would require "boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success in the strategy."  Gates also noted :


    I'm also concerned that, the goal has been stated as degrade and destroy, or degrade and defeat ISIS," he said. "We've been at war with al Qaeda for 13 years. We have dealt them some terrible blows including the killing of Osama bin Laden. But I don't think anybody would say that after 13 years we've destroyed or defeated al Qaeda.


    On the issue of US forces in Iraq, Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports:

    “We are going to increase a little bit,” Odierno said, though he declined to offer any details on the date or size of the new deployments. The Army chief also said he wouldn’t rule out having US special forces fighters embedded in Iraqi ground forces during combat.


    While US Gen Ray Odierno thinks more US troops on the ground in Iraq is an answer, others disagree.  In Iraq earlier this week, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr decried the notion.  He then left the country, reportedly for Lebanon. But his bloc in Parliament continues to back his call.  National Iraqi News Agency reports:


     MP for the Ahrar bloc, Ali al-Shuayli said that " What we see in Iraq is the result of the remnants of the former American intervention in Iraq and its negative effects on society."
    He told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that any defect affects the security of Iraq and its security and military system was a result of US negative intervention and if it enters again to Iraq that means return back and this cannot be accepted. "
    He added that "the Sadrist movement, as a national representative of Iraqis, cannot accept the entry of any foreign troops to Iraq or depend on the occupied states in the fight against terrorism," stressing that "the army and volunteers are able to end the Islamic State organization without the use of any foreign troops."  




    And it's not just the members of Parliament.  Sadr followers turned out in full force today to protest US forces.



    Alsumaria reports the followers see the US using the Islamic State (actually, they go with the pejorative of Da'ash) as a pretext to put more US troops on the ground in Iraq.

    (Unlike many idiots on my side in the US, Sadr's followers were never stupid enough to believe the lie that all US troops left Iraq at the end of 2011.)

    David D. Kirkpatrick (New York Times) wants to use the term 'conspiracy' so he 'reports' on the protests:

    “We know about who made Daesh,” said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops. Mr. Sadr publicly blamed the C.I.A. for creating the Islamic State in a speech last week, and interviews suggested that most of the few thousand people at the demonstration, including dozens of members of Parliament, subscribed to the same theory. (Mr. Sadr is considered close to Iran, and the theory is popular there as well.)

    It's not an Arabic shorthand, it's considered a slur.

    And Kirkpatrick, like so many before him at the paper, is writing to refute the notion that the CIA was involved in the creation of the disturbance -- which Gore Vidal always pointed out should be read as a confirmation of CIA involvement.

    Is Kirkpatrick with the CIA?

    If he's not, why is he ridiculing the notion?

    Because if he's not with the CIA, he really can't confirm anything, can he?

    Despite its record of subversion and destruction throughout the world, the CIA has 'earned' the benefit of doubt?

    I have no idea what the CIA did or did not do in Iraq.  But I'm not stupid enough to pretend they're an innocent body.  A lot of the left is because the basic stereotype has always been, FBI rightwing, CIA socialist-leaning.  And a lot of the left -- Gloria Steinem's only one example -- have worked with and taken money from the CIA.  That's why, for example, when Jean Seberg's noted, the FBI is ripped apart by the left.  When, in fact, Jean was destroyed by the CIA.  It was the CIA working with Newsweek (as it always did) in France that lied about Jean.




    But a co-opted by the CIA left in this country has repeatedly lied that Jean lost her baby (and her grip) because of a Hollywood gossip columnist.  They have repeatedly removed Newsweek from the story, repeatedly failed to point out that the smear operation took place off US soil, they've done everything they can to cover and whore for the CIA.

    We've covered Jean repeatedly here because she was a victim of the US government.  We'll drop back to the August 13, 2013 snapshot:
    But the reality no one wants to talk about -- the reason Joyce Haber, a gossip columnist, is trashed and falsely made into the bad guy -- is because Jean's pregnancy resulted in the full weight of the US government being brought down on her, an American citizen.
    The FBI passed a tip to Haber's editor who passed it to Haber without telling her where it came from but while vouching for the source.  (The editor, Bill Thomas, may not like that reality being know but the tip is in Joyce's files and it includes his handwritten note vouching for the source.)  Haber ran a blind item.  In May of 1970.  Not a big thing, Haber ran blind items all the time.  The only one really 'harmed' by the item was possibly Jane Fonda since the item could have described her in the minds of most Americans who knew she had lived in France and married a French man.  Jean Seberg was in many big films and a celebrity but her personal life was not as widely known (and followed) to the degree that Jane's was.  Even now, the events of Jane's day to day life are more widely known than that of most other actresses.  Jane's personal life has always resulted in the public's interest and the press' coverage.  Those who followed coverage of actresses in 1970 might also have concluded the item was about Barbara Hershey, Mia Farrow or some other actress identified with social causes.  But, again, for most Americans who read the blind item, the obvious choice would have been Jane Fonda because she was the biggest name and the most widely covered (and publicly active in the Native American Movement as well as in the Black Panther Movement).
    Jean tries to take her life in August.  That's a result of Edward Behr and Newsweek.  Behr is the one who writes a 'report' for Newsweek in August that states Jean Seberg is pregnant by a Black Panther.  It's not a blind item: "She and French author Romain Gary, 56, are reportedly about to remarry even though the baby Jean expects in October is by another man -- a black activist she met in California."
    And unlike Joyce Haber's blind item, Newsweek is all over the country and in public and school libraries including Jean's home state of Iowa where her parents live and where she's now branded an "adulteress."  And the Des Moines Register reports on the Newsweek item (they didn't on the Haber item).   Jean was not embarrassed that the world would think she was having a child by an African-American male -- a point that is often missed.  (And the man was actually Latino -- and not a Black Panther or an American -- or in America.)  She was not even thinking, "This will destroy my career!"  She was appalled that her personal life was being exposed to the world and specifically to members of her hometown and to her parents.  Adulteress.  I've been called far worse but I don't give a s**t and never have.  Jean didn't splash her personal life in the papers.  And being called (the judgmental) term of "adulteress" in 1970 could bring shame to someone's family.
    There was no reason for Edward Behr to print that.  First off, it wasn't true.  (The father was an activist in Mexico.) Second, true or not, Romain was publicly the child's father and Newsweek and Behr had no business stepping into that issue -- there is such a thing as right to privacy and there was no 'right to know' or 'need to know' with regards to who the father of her baby was.
    And Romain Gary sued Newsweek and wrote "The Big Knife" for France-Soir blaming Newsweek for the death of the child.
    How does this get missed?
    Because Jean wasn't just targeted by the FBI.  That's the little secret that leads to the lies of "It's Joyce Harber!"  Behr and Newsweek were doing the bidding of the CIA.  Newsweek frequently did the bidding of the CIA -- a reason so many of us don't give a damn if that piece of trash publication goes down the toilet.  Behr was in France.  The CIA ran the smear operation against Jean overseas, not the FBI.



    I'm not going to whore like the rest of the US left or pretend today that the CIA was 'working for the same side' (as I believe Gloria Steinem once idiotically stated to justify her early employment with the CIA).

    The CIA has a long history of backing 'rebels' and they did back, train and supply the 'rebels' in Syria that the Islamic State hails from.

    Sadrist -- and others -- have every reason to wonder if the CIA is involved in the creation of the Islamic State based on the CIA's own history which is instigating trouble in one region after another -- by intent, not by accident.

    National Iraqi News Agency reports "thousands" turned out to demonstrate in Baghdad's Tahrir Square and that "demonstrators raised slogans demanding the US and foreign States not to intervene in the country under the pretext of fighting the terrorists of the Islamic State organization, and do not return American troops to the country, and reject all forms of foreign interference."

    Kirkpatrick, for all his problems, at least notes the demonstration.  So much US press doesn't.

    What we get is violence.


    We'll note Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 71 dead and eighty-six injured in violence on Friday.

    Margaret's made the violence her beat for some time and I'm not insulting her for that.

    I am, however, insulting the press which can only stop reporting violence briefly to note, as Faith Karimi and Talia Kayali (CNN) do, that approximately 49 Turkish hostages were released by the Islamic State.  The Saturday edition of NBC's Today broke from incestuous self-coverage (covering the illness of your own family members really is an abuse of a news outlet) to note the release.

    But was it Barack who said that the solution would be political and not military?

    I believe it was.

    I believe we even agreed with him here on that and applauded him for it.

    I believe he's gone on to repeat that.  I believe Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel quoted Barack to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on just that statement -- just this week.

    So why doesn't the press make the political issues in Iraq the focus of coverage?

    If it matters that much -- and I happen to agree that it does -- why doesn't the press cover it like it matters?

    The Parliament met again today.

    They still didn't vote in a Minister of Defense or Minister of Interior.


    For David Kirkpatrick, that's a detail to bury in paragraph six of his report or 'report;'

    The Parliament has not yet confirmed nominees for the crucial posts of interior or defense minister, in part because of discord between Sunni and Shiite factions, and the Iraqi news media has reported that it may be more than a month before the posts are filled.


    This is bull____.  Whether you support increased war on Iraq (I don't) or not, the bulk of Americans (and people in other countries sending forces, weapons or taking part in bombings) should be able to agree that a Parliament that cannot vote in people to head the security ministries is not demonstrating they deserve assistance.

    This nominee has b.o. or this one has buck teeth or whatever.

    It doesn't really matter.  You need to fill those posts.

    You should have filled them before declaring someone prime minister.

    That's what the Iraqi Constitution says.

    So once again the Parliament is ignoring the Constitution.

    When they did in 2010, Nouri nominated people to fill the security posts when?

    Never.

    He never did.

    He went his whole term with those posts empty.

    He should have been impeached for that.

    At least the new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, has nominated two people for the posts.  The Parliament just refuses to confirm them.


    This is a story, this is a major news story by the definitions for success that Barack Obama has provided.  So why won't the American press treat it as a serious news topic and not an aside?

    I've slammed Jamie Taraby many times here.  Applause and praise to her for treating this and political issues in Iraq as real news topics in her report at Al Jazeera America.  Credit to her for taking the issue seriously -- especially when she's pretty much the only one doing so.


    Today, Susan notes "Obituary: Polly Bergen" (On the Edge).  Thursday, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America issued the following:


    IAVA Responds to VA Whistleblower’s Testimony
    Posted by Kaitlin Ramlogan on September 18

    IAVA Responds to VA Whistleblower’s Testimony 
    New York, NY (September 18, 2014) – Yesterday, whistleblower Dr. Sam Foote blasted the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Aug. 26 report on scheduling manipulation and patient deaths at the Phoenix VA during a hearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee (HVAC). VA Secretary Robert McDonald and Acting Inspector General Richard J. Griffin also testified before the committee.


    The hearing was held one day after the House of Representatives unanimously passed several key pieces of legislation to improve the lives of veterans and their families. The bills passed Tuesday included reforms to VA construction projects, the extension of numerous critical veterans programs, and a cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans and their dependents.


    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff, in San Francisco meeting with post-9/11 veterans, released the following statement:


    “We thank Chairman Miller and HVAC for scrutinizing the latest OIG report on the Phoenix VA’s wait times and scheduling practices. Yesterday's hearing yet again shows how little we know about the scope of corruption and wrongdoing within the VA nationwide. Our community continues to be extremely discouraged with the report’s findings. There must be real accountability established and enforced within the VA, starting with those guilty of misconduct being identified and promptly removed from VA service.

    Additionally, practical policy guidelines need to be established, disseminated and enforced, and 21st century technological updates need to be implemented. Secretary McDonald is in a position to change the course of veteran health care, we are looking to him to continue the strong leadership he has already established during his short time in office and lead this needed reform effort.”


    Note to media: To schedule an interview with IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699.



    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has nearly 300,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its 10th year anniversary, IAVA recently received the highest rating - four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.




    on No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)