Thursday, July 02, 2015

THIS JUST IN! HE DIDN'T THINK ANYONE WOULD TRY TO CONTACT HER!

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


REACHED FOR COMMENT, AXELROD TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I HONESTLY DIDN'T SEE ANY PROBLEM.  I MEAN, I NEVER EXPECTED ANYONE TO E-MAIL HER.  COME ON, IT'S CRANKY!  WHO WANTS TO E-MAIL HER?"




Were Barack Obama and the White House not being held hostage by the government of Iran, maybe they could address issues in Iraq?

Instead, the wasted time continues.  We were told that all the focus would end in March when a deal was arrived at.

There was no deal.

The White House insisted that by the end of June, they'd have a deal.


June has ended.

Currently, they've tacked on another week.

As former US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has repeatedly noted in the last weeks, Iran is not helping Iraq, it is assisting in the hardening of divisions among Iraqis and in inciting ill will.

But that can't be addressed when Barack is held hostage by Tehran.

Some news reports today made the laughable claim that Barack knows how to walk away from the bargaining table.

No, he doesn't.

And when you demonstrate that, and he did last March, you have no power.

That's why tacking three more months to the 'talks' did not result in a deal.

Tehran knows Barack will do anything to avoid walking away.

Tehran knows they're calling the shots.

It's not a debate among equals, it's one group insisting on what they want (Tehran) and another party too scared to end the talks.

And while he continues to allow Iran to take center stage, Iraq suffers every day.



Barack Obama's 'plan' for Iraq doesn't stem the violence, it only adds to it.  The US Defense Dept announced today:


Attack, bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted nine airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Baghdadi, three airstrikes struck land features, denying ISIL a tactical advantage and destroying two ISIL excavators.
-- Near Fallujah, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL tunnel system.
-- Near Haditha, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL vehicles.
-- Near Mosul, two airstrikes struck an ISIL fighting position and an ISIL mortar firing position, destroying an ISIL building.
-- Near Waleed, an airstrike destroyed three ISIL armored personnel carriers.



None of that steers Iraq towards a political solution.


None of that addresses the very real grievances of the Sunni population, a population targeted under the (mis)leadership of Nouri al-Maliki for years and still targeted by the man who replaced him as prime minister Haider al-Abadi.

In January 2014, Nouri began bombing civilians areas in Falluja (Sunni-dominate Falluja).  These bombings continue under Haider al-Abadi (they are collective punishment which is legally defined as a War Crime).


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



Wednesday, July 01, 2015

THIS JUST IN! THE E-MAILS REVEAL?

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

CRANKY CLINTON AND THE STATE DEPT. POPPED A SQUAT AND TOOK ANOTHER DUMP.  

THE E-MAILS ARE FILLED WITH DETAILS.


REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S MORE EMBARRASSING -- THAT HE PROMISED ME I COULD VET HIS COPY OR THAT LESLIE GELB IS WRITING FOR PARADE MAGAZINE?"







Where there is wasted resources and bad reporting, there is the New York Times.

It's a fact the paper never seems to stop flaunting.

The ridiculous Peter Baker and Steve Eder rush forward to remind us of that today in an article about . . .

Well is there a point to it?

The State Dept released some of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

This is a paragraph in the blather Baker and Eder offer:

Her policy priorities come through in the messages as well. In July 2009, when an aide forwarded Mrs. Clinton a message about treatment of gays and lesbians in Iraq, both before and after the reign of Saddam Hussein, she wrote back quickly: “So sad and terrible. We should ask Chris Hill,” the American ambassador, “to raise w govt.”


No policy priorities come through in that paragraph.

They fail to establish anything and seem less like reporters and more like two dishy teens at first lunch.

"So sad and terrible," Hillary wrote.

About what?

Despite being paid to be reporters, neither Peter Baker nor Steve Eder care to share that with the readers.

"We should ask Chris Hill to raise w govt"?

Why?

The writers fail to establish what the communication was about or what was going on in Iraq at the time or even why the issue was raised?

Here's the reality piss panties Peter and Stevie can't tell you because they're too busy whoring and lying (for this you left the Washington Post, Peter?), life in Iraq had turned deadly for the LGBT community.

Under Nouri al-Maliki.

Not under Saddam.

Under Nouri al-Maliki.

It's a fact, quit whoring and lying, Peter Baker and Steve Eder.

Human trash is that which covers for the crimes of a thug.  By that definition, Peter and Steve are human trash.

Oh, C.I., you always blame Nouri!

Because I pay attention and I'm not in a coma.

And maybe if others paid attention as well, Baker and Eder wouldn't get away with this garbage.

July 2009 is when Hillary's suddenly learning of "so sad" life for Iraq's LGBT community.

Who's raising the issue?

Not the moronic New York Times, never the idiotic and homophobic New York Times.

But July of 2009 is when Ashley Byrne's "Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis" (BBC News) appears,


What else was the BBC offering as coverage that month?


From the July 7, 2009 snapshot:


Gay Life After Saddam is a documentary the BBC commissioned which was set to air Sunday, July 5th on BBC Radio 5 Live; however, the Wimbledon Men's Final ran late Sunday and the program has been rescheduled to air Sunday July 12th from nine to ten p.m. (1:00 to 2:00 p.m. PST).  Ashley Byrne did the investigative reporting for the documentary and, at the BBC, Byrne explains, "What is clear, and confirmed by separate evidence from various human rights groups, is that some gay men have been subjected to appalling violent abuse. . . . Gay men inside Iraq have been able to seek santuary in safe houses, thanks to the UK-based Iraqi Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) group, which manages them from London.  The documentary team were granted exclusive access to one of the homes on the outskirts of Baghdad".  The people Byrne speaks to maintain it was easier to be a gay Iraqi when Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq.  So much for 'liberation' and 'democracy.'  Again, the specail has been rescheduled for this coming Sunday, July 12th. 


Now some whine, 'I'd love to listen but BBC's webpage says it's no longer available.'

How is that my problem?

You didn't pay attention in real time?  How is that my problem?

No, the special's no longer available.  It was six years ago.






RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"




Tuesday, June 30, 2015

THIS JUST IN! GOING TO THE CHAPEL!

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

BARRY O MAY BE A FADED CELEBRITY BUT HE'S STILL ONE HOT PIECE OF -- FILL IN THE BLANK.


THIS BECOMES CLEAR AS HE GETS HIS FIRST OFFICIAL MARRIAGE PROPOSAL.




IT WAS A BIG STEP FOR MUGABE WHO HAS SPENT YEARS PRETENDING HE WAS STRAIGHT AND ATTACKING GAYS SO THAT NO 1 WOULD KNOW THE TRUTH OF HIS DESIRES.

GOOD FOR YOU ROBERT MUGABE, YOU LOVE MEN AND NOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO HIDE IT ANYMORE!







Al Bawaba carries one of today's most important stories:


At least 71 civilians have been killed and 90 injured since the beginning of Ramadan due to the repeated shelling of Fallujah city in Iraq’s western Anbar province, a local medical source said Monday.
On June 23, Anbar’s provincial council called on the Iraqi army to refrain from shelling civilian areas of Fallujah, which is currently held by the Daesh militant group.
Ahmed al-Shami, chief doctor at the Fallujah Educational Hospital, told Anadolu Agency that the hospital’s emergency room had received 71 dead and 90 injured, “mostly women and children,” since the beginning of Ramadan on June 18.


The War Crimes, the never ending War Crimes.


Oh, whatcha gonna do when time runs out on you
Run down, ghost town
Barren pastures all around

How y'gonna explain it to your grandkids
Where did the mountain go
How y'gonna tell them you sold it
Where did the mountain go

-- "Chalice Borealis," written by Carole King and Rick Sorensen, first appears on her Speeding Time


How you going to pretend a decade from now, as the world recoils in horror over the then-past crimes, that you didn't know what was going on?

Yes, the White House pretends not to know.

They have to.

These actions -- the Iraqi military bombing civilians homes in Falluja -- meet the legal definition of War Crimes.

Recognizing them means the White House would have to halt all arm shipments to Iraq.

That's even if you set aside the Leahy Amendment.

Treaties and international law recognized by the US government demands that the shipments be stopped if the government is attacking civilians.

So the White House looks the other way.

What's the American people's excuse?

And let's stop pretending that people don't know.

These bombings began under Nouri al-Maliki in January 2014.


They continue under Haider al-Abadi.

They got a flurry of western media attention briefly -- on September 13th when Haider announced they had stopped.

Then the western press, so silent on the bombings for months, rushed to cover the announcement.

And then fell back into silence when, the next day, September 14th, the bombings continued.

There is no excuse for the silence.

And ten years from now, lots of luck explaining that silence.

The youth can be very unforgiving.

They've often not experienced serious regret.

Things are often very clear cut to them.

And the fact that the left in the United States refused to call out the bombing of civilians in Iraq?


Lots of luck defending your silence then.


For 18 months and counting, these attacks on Sunni civilians, attacks carried out by the Iraqi military, have gone on.


Today, AFP reports:

Iraqi premier Haider al-Abadi has “retired” the army’s chief of staff, the most senior officer removed since jihadists overran large parts of the country last year, his spokesman said Monday.

General Babaker Zebari “has been retired” on Abadi’s orders, Saad al-Hadithi told AFP, without providing further details.


All Iraq News, citing a source in the Ministry of Defense, maintains that Zibari is the one who decided to retire and the decision was made "to enjoy retirement because he is getting too old."


Poor Haider, it could have been his big moment.

Could have been.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Cher"




  • Sunday, June 28, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! SHE SAYS YOU'RE STUCK WITH HER!

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



    REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY CLEANED HER TEETH OF THE BONE OF IRAQIS AND LIBYANS AND GROWLED, "WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO?  VOTE FOR BERNIE?"

    HILLARY TOOK A PAUSE TO CACKLE FOR 5 MINUTES AND 20 SECONDS BEFORE CONTINUING, "THEY'RE STUCK WITH ME.  LOOK AT ME AS THE FAT GIRL NEXT DOOR YOUR MOTHER'S MAKING YOU TAKE TO PROM.  YOU DON'T LIKE ME.  YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE OUT WITH ME BUT FOR THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE, YOU'RE STUCK WITH ME."




    Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley is running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  Friday, he gave a speech that is attracting attention. Dan Merica (CNN) reports:


    Throughout the speech, his first detailed comments on global issues since announcing his candidacy last month, O'Malley criticized the way that foreign policy has been dealt with for years, an implicit critique of Clinton given her role as secretary of state during the first Obama administration. He particularly highlighted the war in Iraq and the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, two events inextricably tied to Clinton.
    "The invasion of Iraq -- along with the subsequent disbanding of the Iraqi military -- will be remembered as one of the most tragic, deceitful and costly blunders in U.S. history," O'Malley said at TruCon 2015, a foreign policy conference in Washington. "And we are still paying the price of a war pursued under false pretenses."


    O'Malley has been on a streak of late and gave a speech this week to the Truman National Security Project -- a speech that offered a rallying cry, "No nation ever off-shored its way to greatness."

    In the speech, O'Malley also addressed the issue of global warming:


    Nowhere is this more collaborative approach more important than in confronting the growing and immediate challenge of severe climate change.
    For years, the Pentagon has recognized global warming as an urgent national security threat.
    Your organization’s leader—former Army Captain Mike Breen—put it best at a recent Congressional hearing, when he said:
    “Over 97 percent of climate scientists say that man-made climate change is a reality.”
    “As a combat leader, if 97 percent of my intelligence indicated that I was about to face a lethal danger that would risk the lives of my paratroopers—I would be committing unconscionable malpractice if I did not listen and act.”
    Mike is right.
    The energy technologies needed to combat climate change exist today—it’s only the political will that is lacking.
    America can, and must, lead the way—by pursuing an ambitious plan to ensure our country is powered 100 percent by clean energy, by 2050.
    Climate change is not only a very real existential threat to human life, it is also the greatest business opportunity to come to our country in a hundred years.
    We must seize this opportunity by creating an American Green Jobs Agenda that is a match for the climate challenge.
    We need to invest in resilience—from the Jersey Shore to California’s Central Valley.
    We need to spur innovation—to develop cutting-edge technologies that will create jobs at home, and unlock new markets abroad.
    We need to embrace new ideas at the state level, as we have in Maryland— where, in just eight years, we increased renewable energy capacity by 57 percent, became a clean-tech jobs hub, and cut carbon emissions by 10 percent.
    America’s leadership and example are essential.
    Because climate change is a global challenge—with global consequences. It is the transformation that transforms everything.
    And by confronting this challenge, we can realize global economic opportunities—and job opportunities—for the United States.
    We must partner with emerging markets, in our own hemisphere and beyond, to distribute renewable energy solutions and green design.
    We must aggressively push for global emissions agreements in venues like the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
    And we must seed, scale, and deploy American-made renewable energy technologies throughout the world.
    To reduce mankind’s carbon footprint.
    To preserve the living systems of this earth—for ourselves and our posterity.




    That's where we could be.

    Let's drop back to where we are.


    "We're short -- we're short in '16," declared VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson on Thursday regarding Hepatitis C care.  "I  -- You know, the budget's what, 650? six-hundred-and-fifty-million?  Somewhere in that neighborhood.  Six-hundred-and-fifty to seven-hundred-million dollars for '16 and-and that -- We won't -- That won't be adequate unless we ration that care."


    Gibson was testifying before the US House Veterans Affairs Committee Thursday morning.


    To avoid rationing care for Hepatitis C cases in 2016?


    Gibson advised, "The other option is -- as we're doing right now -- is basically, when we run out of money to do it inside VA, we refer those to care under Choice and-and rely on that-that sort of safety valve."


    The problems go beyond 2016.


    Gibson insisted, "We're in a situation where we're going to have to start denying care to veterans because we don't have the resources to be able to pay for it.  And-and that's -- I don't think anybody wants to see that happen.  It will be a very -- a very unpleasant and unsatisfactory situation.

    And that's not him talking about the 2016 budget or about Hep C.  That was in reply to US House Rep Julia Brownley's question about the current shortfall this year and what that means come August.


    Over $350 million can be pulled from the Veterans Choice Program funds to cover costs that do not meet the criteria for Veterans Choice Programs, Gibson and the VA are insisting.



    US House Rep Jeff Miller is the Chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.  In his opening remarks, he outlined many problems revolving around the newly announced 'shortfall' in the budget.  We're using his written statement and using it as written (with paragraph breaks) because a number of topics are covered in it and it will be easier to read and comprehend



    Given the extensive pent-up demand for care that was exposed during last year’s hearings on wait time manipulation, VA had ample time to adjust its budgetary needs with the Office of Management and Budget to prevent what we are now seeing.  
    In February through April of this year, Secretary McDonald appeared at four separate budget hearings.
    Since those have concluded, the Secretary and I have met and spoken regularly on a number of important, emerging issues. 
    At no point in those hearings or in our subsequent discussions since, has the Secretary expressed to me that the Department had a budget shortfall of such a magnitude – one that threatens VA’s ability to meets its obligations to our nation’s veterans. 
    Nor did other VA leaders or officials communicate how much in the red VA was either - even though the Committee was informed late last week that the Department knew as early as March that there were giant disparities between the amount of money that VA was spending and the amount of money budgeted. 
    The only message that Congress received in March regarding the state of VA’s budget was the quarterly financial report VA submitted to the Appropriations Committee  for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, which showed that VA was actually under plan in terms of its spend out rate. 
    Meanwhile, just two weeks ago VA proposed a plan – that Congress authorized at the Department’s urging - to transfer one hundred and fifty million dollars in fiscal year 2015 funding to support the continued construction of the replacement medical center project in Denver, Colorado. 
    VA also proposed an across the board recession of just under a one percent in fiscal year 2016 funds to devote to the Denver project – a proposal, by the way, that the Veterans Health Administration’s Chief Financial Officer told Committee staff last week that she did not even know about until after it had already been transmitted to Congress. 
    Those actions clearly show that VA leaders believe that moving forward with the Denver project – which is not scheduled to open to veteran patients until 2017 at the earliest - is a higher priority for the Department than ensuring that veterans who need care now are able to access that care. 
    I have come to expect a startling lack of transparency and accountability from VA over the last years; but failing to inform Congress of a multi-billion dollar funding deficit until this late in the fiscal year while continuing to advance what I believe are lower priority need that further deplete the Department’s coffers in support of a construction project that benefits no veteran for at least two more years is disturbing on an entirely different level.    
    Earlier this week, VA issued a “fact sheet” that claims that VA “formally requested limited budget flexibility” in February and March and May of this year and, “plainly articulated” VA’s need for additional resources. 
    Buried on page one hundred and sixty seven of the second volume of VA’s budget submission is a single statement that reads: “[i]n the coming months, the Administration will submit legislation to reallocate a portion of Choice program funding to support essential investments in VA system priorities…” 

    Secretary McDonald repeated this statement in his budget testimony without providing any additional supporting details or justification and, to-date, no legislative proposal has been submitted by the Administration. 




    Miller is the Chair and, thanks to Nancy Pelosi's shenanigans, the laughable Corrine Brown is the Ranking Member.


    Thursday, I didn't have my Corrine-To-English translator ring on me so we'll just note a little bit of her opening remarks.


    Ranking Member Corrine Brown:  The VA is facing a shortfall of 2.6 billion for veterans healthcare.  This shortfall must be address [sic] ammediately [sic].  We cannot put the health and lives of our veterans at ris [sic] by spending our time and attention pointing fingers and assigning blame.  VA will be facing an additional shortfall at the start of the next fistal [sic] year in October 



    We have to stop there.

    We have to.

    Corrine goes on to say that the country is headed towards a government shutdown -- she uses shutdown twice.  Both times she probably would have been bleeped on TV.

    She always invents her own words and here she took the "u" in "shutdown" and replaced it with an "i" both times she said it.

    A government sh*tdown.

    The fist time she said it, people were looking around.  Then she said, "Let me say that again, we are headed towards a government sh*tdown" and several on the Committee appeared to bite their lips to avoid laughing.

    On her third time using the term, she did manage to say "shutdown."

    Keep playing with the English language, Corrine, it works if you work it.


    Corrine used her time to ask about fee based care and Choice.  Yes, Choice is fee based.  Many grasped that before Corinne's question but everyone grasped it after Sloane explained Choice.

    Well . . .

    Everyone but Corinne Brown.


    After he finished describing it, she asked, "And Choice?"


    A confused Sloan Gibson replied softly, "That is Choice."


    Oh, Corrine Brown.





    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



    Friday, June 26, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! ROBERTS IS CRUSHING HARD!


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

    "THIS RULING WILL STRENGTHEN ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES," DECLARED FADED CELEBRITY OF BARRY O ON THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO STAND WITH MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

    WHOOPS OF JOY WERE HEARD FROM CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT WHO HOLLERED HE COULD FINALLY LEAVE HIS SHAM MARRIAGE AND FOCUS ON "THE ONLY BOY I EVER LOVED!"

    JUMPING UP AND DOWN, ROBERTS SCREAMED, "BARRY O, I'M COMING FOR YOU!  I CAN'T QUIT YOU, MAN!"







    This week has seen a number of Iraqi commanders and military forces sound off in the press about the failures of Barack Obama.

    The US President is far from mistake free.

    But the criticism has been that he's not given enough weapons, that he's not given enough support?.

    They do realize he's the President of the United States, right?

    He's not serving the Iraqi people.

    And when in history has any domestic military felt they had the right to whine that they weren't getting enough assistance from any other country?

    Iraq's security forces are supposed to be responsible for the protection and safety of their country.


    They've never managed to pull it off but it is their job.

    Any assistance they may receive is just that: Assistance.


    It's 'in addition to' -- the primary responsibility remains on them.

    I don't fear the criticism is fair of Barack at all.

    It's criticism rooted in greed and entitlement.

    But mainly it's about refusing to take ownership of your own failures and instead pushing them off on others.

    If the Iraqi military is unhappy with the equipment they have, they need to take that up with the Iraqi leaders and officials who have failed them.


    Where are all those weapons they bought from Russia, for example?




    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
    "Rand"






  • Thursday, June 25, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRANKY CLINTON SHARES LIFE LESSONS!



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


    FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S BUTT WAS YET AGAIN SAVED BY CLOSET CASE JOHN ROBERTS WHOSE WORLD WEARY WIFE SIGHED AND SAID, "OH GET A ROOM!"


    MORE SPECIFICALLY, SHE SAID:

    SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO MOVE ON.  LOOK AT ME.  I WAS KIND OF HOMELY, KIND OF PUDGY, KIND OF MEAN AND ANGRY, AND THAT WAS BEFORE I CAUGHT BILL WITH MONICA.  I COULD HAVE CARRIED THAT HATE AND ANGER FOREVER.  INSTEAD I TORTURED SOCKS THE CAT AND, AFTER, FELT GOOD ENOUGH TO MOVE ON.  MOVE ON!  SO YOU'RE OLD AND UGLY AND YOUR SPOUSE CHEATS ON YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE OLD AND UGLY.  MOVE ON!  





    This afternoon, a House Armed Services Committee held a hearing.

    The Subcommittee Committee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities managed to do something every group holding a hearing longs to do -- establish clearly where the problem lies.

    And the hearing did exactly that, the Subcommittee documented the Emerging Threats.

    I'm not really sure though that they grasp that they did.

    Appearing before the Subcommittee were the New American Foundation's Brian Fishman, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Michael Eisenstadt, RAND Corporation's Linda Robinson and the American Enterprise Institute's Frederick Kagan.

    All four offered testimony and -- to one degree or another -- waived the Fifth Amendment.

    It was a long hearing but, more importantly, it was a soul draining hearing.


    While madmen sit up building bombs
    And making laws and bars
    They're gonna slam free choice behind us

    Last night I dreamed I saw the planet flicker
    Great forests fell like buffalo
    Everything got sicker
    And to the bitter end 
    Big business bickered 
    And they call for the three great stimulants
    Of the exhausted ones
    Artifice, brutality and innocence
    Artifice and innocence
    -- "Three Great Stimulants," written by Joni Mitchell, first appears on her Dog Eat Dog album

    And when Robinson and Kagan especially competed to be 'smartest in the room,' you longed for them to stop cooperating with the Subcommittee and instead reply, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me."

    We often mock Fred Kagan here as being the "arm candy" of Kimberly Kagan.

    We do that for two reasons.  One, when we started the joke, it was the rare press piece on Kimberly that couldn't work in 'she married to Frederick Kagan!' while the pieces on him could sail right by without ever noting her.  (That's sexism, for those of you on autopilot.)  Second, he's seen -- by some -- as so intelligent.  But he's not.  Kimberly Kagan is not someone I agree with very often -- we're on opposite sides of the political fence -- but she generally speaks -- I'm not talking soundbytes, I'm talking testimony, speeches, papers -- in a manner that acknowledges humanity.  For that reason alone, she's the smarter of the pair.

    When Fred Kagan speaks, we're all just ants in his ant farm that he seems ready to toss in the trash, so bored has he become with humanity and living.

    After nearly two hours, the hearing was finally drawing to a close when Kagan, baited by , had to show just how ugly he can be.

    Yes, Kagan insisted, the US government did have a problem with the current plan or 'plan' for combating the Islamic State in Iraq.

    The problem?

    Too much effort was being made to not kill civilians.


    Think I misheard?

    Here's the exchange with US House Rep Doug Lamborn.  Let's listen in with horror.



    US House Rep: Doug Lamborn:  Thank you all for being here and I'd like to ask you about our targeting of ISIS' assets.  The New York Times reported on May 26th that "American officials say they are not striking significant and obvious Islamic State targets out of fear that the attacks will accidentally kill civilians.  But many Iraqi commanders and some American officers say that exercising such prudence with airstrikes is a major reason ISIS has been able to seize vast territory in recent months in Iraq and Syria."  Dr. Kagan, would you agree with that assessment? And-and is it possible to step up aistrikes while still, uh, to the degree possible, uh, preserving civilians lives?


    Frederick Kagan: Uh, I think that there is a trade off between deciding that you're going to have a more effective air campaign and accepting a higher risk of civilian casualties. I think if your standard for civilian casualties is low, you're probably going to have a very hard time increasing, uh, the intensity of the air campaign -- especially as long as you're not prepared to put forward air controllers on the ground, uh, which would be something that would mitigate that.  But I think that we have too high of a standard, uh, for -- from the standard of collateral damage for civilian casualties.  I think that, uh, the truth is this is a war and, uhm, we always try to minimize, uh, collateral damage and civilian casualty but, uhm,  a standard of effectively zero has done enormous harm to our ability to prosecute this war with the tools that we have at our disposal.




    To make a few things clear . . .



    When Kagan made his puzzling remarks to US House Rep Trent Franks that the US government had poor relations with the Sunnis in Iraq because of the US government's support for the Kurds in Iraq, I disagreed.  (Like Franks, who quickly changed the subject, I couldn't grasp what Kagan was attempting to say or the basis for that bizarre call.)  But as strongly as I disagreed, I could write it off as just disagreeing.

    Second, Kagan is not just right wing, he's a neocon.  Part of one of the biggest neocon families (his brother Robert Kagan, his sister-in-law the dreadful Victoria Nuland, his father is Donald Kagan, etc.).  But his remarks are not a neocon attitude -- or not solely a neocon attitude.


    The allegedly left Foreign Policy In Focus was arguing the same points Kagan was -- we called them out in the June 4th snapshot as well as in "Iraq: Failed follow ups and whining that bombs aren't being dropped quick enough" -- a point worth remembering for those of us on the left who might want to write Kagan's remarks off as something 'only the right could say.'


    Third, the New York Times article was written by the Washington-based Eric Schmitt so we never took it or Schmitty to seriously.

    "Many Iraqi commanders"?

    Did you phone 'em, Schmitty?

    Or did you maybe just put a finger on each temple and 'psychically' connect with them?

    (I'm sure many Shi'ite commanders in the Iraqi military feel there's too much restraint when it comes to bombing Sunni areas.  We've seen, in Tikrit most recently, what Shi'ite forces can do in the name of 'liberation' to Sunnis and Sunni homes.  I'm just as sure that Schmitty himself did not speak to "many Iraqi commanders" -- though he did feel the need to 'give voice to them' -- or maybe just put words in their mouths?)


    And for those who might want to insist that Schmitt got the byline but others could have spoken to Iraqi commanders?  Ben Hubbard was in Urfa, Turkey, Anne Barnard and Maher Samaan were in Beirut.  Only Omar al-Jawoshy was in Iraq (Baghdad).  No, I'm not picturing him rushing to and from commander for comments.


    RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"


    Wednesday, June 24, 2015

    THIS JUST IN! CRACKER CRACKS UP!

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




    MY LITTLE BLACK CHILDREN?

    WHAT PARENT SAYS THAT ABOUT --

    OH, RENITA'S A CRACKER.

    A SALTINE.

    SHE TOOK SOME BLACK COCK UP HER HOO-HOO AND SHE THINKS THAT MAKES HER AN EXPERT ON RACE AND AN HONORARY BLACK.

    CRACKER, PLEASE.

    STFU.








    Let's start with today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson John Kirby.



    QUESTION: Can we go to the war against ISIS?


    MR KIRBY: Sure.


    QUESTION: Today the advisor to the supreme leader in Tehran, Ali Akbar Velayati, after meeting with the Syrian interior minister, said that there’s going to be meetings in Baghdad between Iraq, Iran, and Syria to consolidate efforts against ISIS. Would you object to including the Syrian Government in this process?


    MR KIRBY: I think I would put this in the same area that we talked about when we talked about Prime Minister Abadi traveling to Tehran. It is understandable. And it’s not the first time, by the way, that Iraqi leaders have met – excuse me – with Assad regime leaders. But it – we understand. This is a sovereign country; we have to keep reminding ourselves, I find, to remind everybody that Iraq is sovereign. Prime Minister Abadi is the prime minister of a sovereign nation and we should expect that he’s going to have discussions and meetings and outreach with neighbors in the Middle East, particularly immediate neighbors. And so that’s the rubric under which we understand this meeting is occurring.



    QUESTION: So you don’t object, let’s say, to cooperation between Syria, Iraq, and Tehran in fighting the same enemy that you are fighting?


    MR KIRBY: We have – our position hasn’t changed. The Assad regime has lost legitimacy, has to go. And I think it’s important to remember in the context of this or any other meeting that it’s largely because of Assad that ISIL has been able to flourish and grow and operate and sustain itself inside Syria. And so I think it’s important to remember that. Nothing’s changed about our view on that. But we also understand that Prime Minister Abadi has obligations – security obligations – that he himself and the Iraqi people hold to be important. And if he’s having meetings with neighboring nations, the leaders of neighboring nations, in concert with that, well, that’s certainly his prerogative.


    QUESTION: But, may I? If you’re saying that Assad is the source of all this terrorism, then I mean – or the main cause or continues to be a source of this terrorism, I mean, how are you really going to go after ISIS without a strategy to get rid of Assad?


    MR KIRBY: Well, I didn’t say that Assad is the main reason why ISIL exists.



    QUESTION: Well, this Administration has basically put it at his feet that ISIS was able to flourish and you just said that --


    MR KIRBY: I did. Yes.


    QUESTION: -- ISIS was able to flourish because of --


    MR KIRBY: Absolutely. It’s been able to – one of the reasons it has been able to flourish inside Syria is that the Assad regime has lost all legitimacy. They are – they are not – they’ve – large swaths of ungoverned space inside Syria that ISIL has been able to take advantage of and to exploit.
    The mission against ISIL – the coalition mission is against ISIL. Separate and distinct from that, nothing has changed about our longstanding belief that the Assad regime’s lost legitimacy and needs to go. We’ve also said repeatedly and consistently that there’s not going to be a military solution to that issue, that what needs to happen is a negotiated political settlement.


    QUESTION: Is there any movement on that?



    MR KIRBY: Well, it’s – we talked about this the other day, Elise. We continue to work at this. This is a tough problem in a very complicated area. Everybody understands that. But that’s what really needs to happen here. It’s not going to be solved militarily.



    First on the above:



  • Freudian slip?State Dept. spox: "#[Iraq] is a sovereign country; we have to keep reminding ourselves." Remind ourselves?




  • Second, Elise is Elise Labott of CNN.

    And the thing to note about the above?

    Even when specifically asked about political efforts ("any movement on that?"), the administration can't answer.

    June 19, 2014 found US President Barack Obama insisting that there was no military answer for Iraq, that the only answer to the crises in Iraq was a political solution.

    Over a year later, they still can't point to any real progress on that front.

    Nor have they devoted significant time or effort towards helping Iraq reach a political solution.



  • Coalition airstrikes against  terrorists increasing in Iraq & Syria: 50 over last 48 hrs, including 22 yesterday in Iraq. Via 


  • That's the State Dept's Brett McGurk and he Tweets that nonsense near daily.


    He just never Tweets about efforts towards a political solution.

    Because there are none.

    The State Dept drops no 'diplomatic bombs' on Iraq.




    Today, the host of MSNBC's All In With Chris Hayes notes:


  • solution to the horror in Iraq is political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia. That is likely to take a very very long time.. <2>



  • And it will take even longer because there are no efforts at real diplomacy and real assistance on the part of the US government.





    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"