Sunday, March 29, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY WIPES AND FLUSHES!

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

CRANKY CLINTON IS IN THE MIDST OF ANOTHER FIRESTORM AS REVELATIONS EMERGE THAT NOT ONLY DID SHE REFUSE TO TURN OVER E-MAILS TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR THEM TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND WHAT WAS PERSON DURING HER TIME AS SECRETARY OF STATE (WHEN SHE REFUSED TO USE A GOVERNMENT E-MAIL WHICH WOULD HAVE RECORDED ALL OF HER E-MAILS FOR THE HISTORIC RECORD), BUT DESPITE THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAVING ASKED HER TO TURN OVER ALL E-MAILS LATE LAST FALL, SHE DID NOT.

NOT ONLY DID SHE REFUSE TO TURN THEM OVER, IT HAS EMERGED THAT SHE ALSO WIPED HER SERVER POSSIBLY MAKING WHAT WAS ON IT LOST FOREVER.


REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS LATE TONIGHT, CRANKY CLINTON REPLIED, "OF COURSE I WIPED!  WHAT KIND OF HUMAN BEING WOULD I BE IF I DIDN'T WIPE! I ALSO FLUSH!"

WITH THAT, CRANKY HUNG UP.







Egypt announced its support for UN efforts to seek a political solution to the conflict in Libya, yet warned of the possible ‘lengthy’ time period needed for peaceful negotiations to conclude.

The Libyan people shouldn't have to, no.  But haven't the Iraqi people been forced to?

And not just for a few months or even for a year but for years -- plural.

The US government (under Bully Boy Bush) demanded in 2006 that Nouri al-Maliki be made prime minister.  From 2006 through 2010, he accomplished nothing and his failures were somewhat hidden by the fact that US boots were on the ground.  They were misused, to be sure.  They were used to provide stability for a government that was non-inclusive and that was accomplishing nothing.  The 'surge,' you may remember, was supposed to be the US troops providing stability and security which would free up the Iraqi government to focus on the political process.  While the US military carried out their task, Nouri failed at his.

By 2010, Nouri was a divisive figure whose failures were welol known -- as were his secret prisons where he torured people.  In March 2010, the Iraqi people voted for Iraqiya ahead of Nouri's State of Law.  This was the Iraqi voters choosing a national unity and a national identity and rising above thug Nouri's sectarian policies.  Iraqiya was welcoming to all Iraqis, representing men and women, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds and various religious and ethnic minorities.

Even the Bully Boy Bush administration -- one not known for keen insights or even basic smarts -- would have realized this was a move to be backed up and endorsed.

But they didn't promise to pull out all troops from Iraq.  Barack had.

And Samantha Power and others insisted that the deal they wanted (which was already a plan to keep a few thousand troops in Iraq) could only be pulled off with the support of Nouri.

The CIA profile on Nouri in February of 2006 had noted Nouri's intense paranoia and this was seen as an asset, a way that the US government could control him.

In 2010, Samantha Power made a similar argument: Barack should back Nouri because Nouri was so divisive and unpopular and he would need American support to remain in office so they could leverage that support to get what they wanted from Nouri.  

So instead of supporting the Iraqi people, Barack backed Nouri.  And he had US officials in Iraq negotiate a contract -- The Erbil Agreement -- to give Nouri a second term.

The contract was nicely known as a power-sharing agreement.  And while that was one aspect of it, there was also the fact that that it was a bribe list.

Political leaders agreed to give Nouri a second term as prime minister and, in exchange, Nouri agreed to give them various things.  Ayad Allawi, leader of Iraqiya, would be put in charge of a national security commission, the Kurds would finally see Article 150 of the Iraqi Constitution implemented, etc.

And Nouri embraced the contract and was all for it.  To get his second term.

But he got named prime minister (designate) and said the contract would have to wait a bit -- the rest of it -- to be implemented.

That was November 2010.

He never implemented it.

He never honored the promises he made in that contract.

And as political parties demanded the contract be honored, the tensions grew and grew.

From 2010 through 2014, there was little concern about the terrorism the Iraqi people were living under.  The world turned a blind eye with few exceptions.  

When it became undeniable, the world paid attention long enough to see Barack finally pull the rug out from under despot Nouri al-Maliki and begin (publicly) sending US troops back into Iraq. 

Stepping onto the global stage last June, addressing the world, Barack declared that the only answer to Iraq's various crises was a political solution.


Where's that political solution?

Nearly a year later, where's that political solution?


Thursday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing.  We covered some of it in that day's snapshot.  Today, we're focusing on the key concern of how the operation against the Islamic State is failing.  

Appearing before the Committee were the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL John Allen as well as Brig Gen Michael Fantini and Brig Gen Gregg Olson.


John Allen is a retired general who, despite having taken a job of envoy which is under the State Dept, insists upon being called "General."  As a general rule, we go by what people call themselves here.

General rule.

There was a Rolling Stone employee who created a title for himself. 

The title didn't exist.

The New York Times ran with that title.

We did not.

When we gave his title, we gave the title that he actually had.  (And I told Jann Wenner what was going on and the employee was told to stick to the title he had which finally led the Times to use the correct title.  I also ratted out the stooge who went along with the RS employee -- NYT stooge who was the employee's friend -- to the paper and got the stooge packing.  Facts are facts, I don't tolerate lies and I don't tolerate them when press outlets try to claim "it's just entertainment coverage."  If it matters enough for you to cover it, it matters enough for you to cover it correctly.)


Allen is an envoy.  He is under the State Dept.  He is supposed to be heading Barack's diplomatic effort.

That makes him an envoy.

If that title is beneath him, and he acts as though it is, too bad.

John Allen has done an awful job as an envoy and possibly Barack, years from now, will be able to point to Allen's disaster moves to mitigate the blame he (Barack) faces for Iraq.


A diplomat was needed to work towards a political solution.

Instead of a diplomat, Barack appointed a retired general and one who has no sense of history or perspective on Iraq beyond bombs and guns.

John Allen started out an embarrassment, he's become an impediment.

Barack should find someone quickly to replace Allen and use it to create a "restart."  The latter would be especially helpful to him politically since June is approaching and his remarks from last year will be revisited then.

From Thursday's hearing, we'll note this exchange.

US House Rep Ted Deutch  I want to actually start with the news about our strikes in Tikrit.  The coverage in the New York Times today  included a paragraph which  said, "If the Americans did not engage they feared becoming marginalized by Tehran  in a country where they had spilled much blood in the last decade, the official said speaking on the condition of anonymity."  Is -- If you could speak to the strikes in Tikrit, the air support that the United States is providing, is it different than the support we've had in the past? And is it being offered in part because  there were concerns about being marginalized by the Iranians?  And in answering that question, it gets to the broader point of, again the same article "the preponderance of 30,000 fighters on the Iraqi side had been members of the militias fighting alongside the Iraqi military and police men.  Of those 30,000, how do we -- Gen Allen, following your last response -- how do we view it in a nuanced way to distinguish between the Iranian-backed militias and Sistani's popular mobilization forces?

Brig Gen Fat : Congressman, so I think the answer to your question is "no." We work by, with and through the Iraqi government.  And so through the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces, the-the, uh, the Iraqis came back and asked for support and we adjudicated that decision to the highest levels and decided to engage there.  It's within the Iraqi interest and the coalition's interest to be successful in Tikrit cause we don't want to have another success for Da'ash or ISIL. And, uh, we anticipate that the, uh, support that we're providing the Iraqi security forces with the Ministry of Defense, uh, in -- with the Ministry of Defense in in charge of the command and control of, uh, that operation that we're in a position where we can provide that support to be successful. 

US House Rep Ted Deutch: General Allen?

Envoy John Allen:  With regard to the command and control the, uh -- There's a difference between, uh, the role of the, uh, the traditional Shia elements that are aligned directly with Iraq and support directly with Iraq and those elements of the PMF that have provided, uh, uh, a larger force posture and a larger force generation capability, uh, they are not -- They don't intend to be or -- are not intended to be a permanent part of the Iraqi security force entity.  They are -- They are viewed as a temporary organization that have played the role ultimately of blunting and halting, uh, the forward progress of Da'ash.  And as we continue to build out the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces across the board and, uhm, we can provide you, I think, significant detail about the forces that are engaged right now in Tikrit.  It's-it's-it's actually quite encouraging.  Uhhhhh, to give you a sense of when the PMF elements are going to be in play and when they won't be in play -- and as we continue to force generate the regular forces they will play an increasing role ultimately in the counter-offensive to liberate the populations.

US House Rep Ted Deutch: General Allen, are you -- are you confident that the Iraqi people view this action in Tikrit as one taking place against ISIS by the United States through air strikes and Iraqi security forces or is it viewed as one that is a combination of US air strikes and Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias?

Envoy John Allen: Uh, that's a good question.  Uh, we've -- again from my time on the ground just last week there, uh, I made a point to meet with the provincial leadership in Salahuddin Province in which Tikrit is the largest population center.  Uh, at the time, the leadership in Salahuddin and-and even recently have talked about focusing on the liberation of Tikrit, uh, and have applauded the role of American forces in supporting the central government and the Iraqi security forces in liberating Tikrit from Da'ash.  So my sense is that on the ground in Salahuddin, their view is that the United States as we have done in other places, multiple other places in Iraq, are providing the kinds of both enabling to the use of information to command and control -- support to command and control -- and ultimately fire power that will facilitate the Iraqi government and the Iraqi security forces in accomplishing the mission of defeating Da'ash and liberating this population center.  So my sense is that at least the Sunni leadership --  key Sunni leadership -- the Speaker, the Vice President and others but also the Sunni leadership of Salahhudin have been clear that they support the role of the United States in this particular fight, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I just hope then that that translates down to the Iraqi people as well and I yield back.


We'll note another exchange from the hearing in a moment.

But first off, that's Speaker of Parliament who would be Salim al-Jabouri and Vice President Osama al-Nujafi.

As the chief US diplomat, Allen should know those names and titles.

Friday, March 27, 2015

THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO THE MARY SUE!

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

 A MAN WHO BLOGS AT THE MARY SUE IS ALREADY SUSPECT.

AND THAT'S BEFORE HE TRIES TO WHORE THE MARY SUE.  (OR BEFORE YOU FACTOR IN THE FACT THAT HE ALWAYS LOOKS LIKE HE'S WEARING LIPSTICK.)

DAN VAN WINKLE DID JUST THAT BY PIMPING A FUNDRAISING SPAM MAIL AS "AN E-MAIL" WRITTEN BY BARACK OBAMA AND THEN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO USE A LINK AND HAND OVER THEIR INFORMATION TO THE SPY-ER IN CHIEF.

 THE MARY SUE -- FOR IDIOTS TO STUPID TO NAVIGATE A POLLING BOOTH ALONE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


While the world tries to make sense of the 'plan' the White House has for the Middle East, US House Rep Alan Grayson attempted to do the same in today's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing with regards to Barack's 'plan' for Iraq.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Gen Olson, trying to piece together information from public sources, it appears to me that we're spending roughly a million dollars for every ISIS fighter that the US military kills.  Does that sound right to you?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson: The figure that we understand for the operation cost per day is about 8.5 million dollars.  

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But am I right to think that we're spending approximately a million dollars for every single ISIS fighter that US forces kill?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson:  I-I haven't done the math, sir.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Alright let's assume for the sake of the argument that that's correct.  Does it make sense for us to be deploying the most powerful military force that the world has ever seen and spend one million dollars to kill some man standing in the desert, 6,000 miles from the closest American shore, holding a 40-year-old weapon?  Does that make sense?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson: The military strategy as designed provides US support to a coalition that will degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat ISIL.

US House Rep Alan Grayson: What about you, Gen Fantini? Can you think of ways that we could spend less than a million dollars and still keep America safe for every gentleman standing in a desert, 6,000 miles away, whom we kill?

Brig Gen Michael Fantini:  Congressman, I-I can't address the math that you're presenting.  I don't know whether that's accurate or not.  Uh, from the perspective of continuing with the strategy of developing local forces, to enable those local forces with coalition support to degrade and defeat ISIL, I would submit that is a worthy expenditure of resources. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Well let's talk about that.  You of course are very, very familiar with what Gen Powell said about what makes for a good effective war and what doesn't.  Gen Powell said that we need a vital national security interest that's pursued by a clear strategy, we need overwhelming force and we need an exit strategy. So let's start with you on that, Gen Allen, what is our exit strategy?

Envoy John Allen:  The exit strategy is an Iraq that ultimately is territorial secure, sovereign, an ISIL that has been denied safe haven ultimately has been disrupted to the point where it has no capacity to threaten at an existential level the government of Iraq and the nation of the Iraqi people and ulitmatly ends up in a state that does not permit it to threaten the United States or our homeland.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  General Allen, that doesn't sound like a strategy to me.  That sounds like a wish list.

Envoy John Allen:  You know --

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  You certainly understand the difference between a strategy and a wish list.

Envoy John Allen:   And-and I do.  And this strategy, in fact, has a whole series of lines of effort that converge on Da'ash to prevent it from doing the very things that I just mentioned. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But what is our strategy?

Envoy John Allen:  The strategy is to pursue a series of lines of effort from defense of the homeland to stabilization of the Iraqi government to the countering of the Da'ash message, to the disruption of its finances, to the -- uh -- impediment of the foreign fighters to the empowerment of our allies to the le-leadership of a coalition ultimately aimed to the defeat of Da'ash.  That's a strategy.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But none of those are exit strategies, right?


Envoy John Allen:  There is no exit strategy for this.  This is about dealing with Da'ash.  This is about defeating Da'ash.  The success of the strategy is not about exit.  The secees -- success of the strategy is about empowering our partners so that they can ultimately restore the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of a country and deny Da'ash the ability  ultimately to, uh, to do that.  If you're looking for an exit strategy with respect to our presence in Iraq when we have successfully concluded that strategy.  We have said from the beginning that our forces will redeploy.  The coalition has said from the beginning that our forces will redeploy.  So if that's the term that you are seeking in terms of an exit strategy then-then I would say that is the mechanism by which we redeploy our  forces from Iraq.  But the strategy is oriented on an effect that we hope to achieve with respect to Da'ash. 

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Gen Olson, you will agree that we're not using what Colin Powell would have considered to be overwhelming force, correct? 

Brig Gen Gregg Olson:  We're using an appropriate level of force to --

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Which isn't overwhelming force, right?  Not as -- not as Colin Powell would see it, right?

Brig Gen Gregg Olson:   Uh, I don't want to speak for Gen Powell.  I believe that the resources that we're applying to the in our ends -- to achieve our ends through matching ways and means are appropriate for the strategy as designed.

US House Rep Alan Grayson:  Gen Fantini, yes or no, are we using what you would consider to be overwhelming military force?

Brig Gen Michael Fantini:  Congressman, uh, I-I would submit that, uh, American air power against an AK47 could be construed as overwhelming.  I, uh, agree with, uh, Gen Olson that the-the use of the resources and the force applied to support our coalition partners to enable these ground operations are appropriate for the strategy and for the strategy and for success in this fight that will take a clear eyed and long term commitment and, we have stated, at least three years. 



There were many key moments in this morning's hearing but that was the most notable.

Not only did Grayson put an understandable dollar amount on the financial cost (paid for by US tax payers) he also got a grand admission from Envoy Barry Allen.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But none of those are exit strategies, right?


Envoy John Allen:  There is no exit strategy for this. 


"There is no exit strategy for this."


Barack's begun an action with no exit strategy.


And the way Allen ranted on, it was like an Aaron Sorkin moment.


US House Rep Alan Grayson:  But none of those are exit strategies, right?


Envoy John Allen:  There is no exit strategy for this.  This is about dealing with Da'ash.  This is about defeating Da'ash.  The success of the strategy is not about exit.  


Maybe when you select an envoy, you don't go with some retired general who doesn't grasp diplomacy and thinks sticking to scripted lines makes him sound smart?

Existential?

What is this with the administration's speech writers and the term existential?

It's not like any of them grasp Jean-Paul Sarte but they sure do love to (mis)use the term existential.

They also love "degrade and destroy."

They use these terms far too often.

And, by the way, they and the nonsense of "holistic" all supposedly come from the State Dept's Brett McGurk -- or that's what he's been bragging to others.


There is no exit strategy.

Which shouldn't be all that surprising.

The whole point of endless war is that it's . . . endless.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Michigan Greens Renew Call to Decommission Line 5,..."
"Circles and circles and circles again"
"quick question"
"Arrow (the Atom)"
"Iraq"
"Junior emerges from his prison spanking"
"Sort that one out"
"Hillary needs to find a hobby"
"It takes a . . . lawsuit"
"On crushes"
"Seriously?"
"Bette Tweets"
"Cranky's up for anything!"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S UP FOR ANYTHING!"

Thursday, March 26, 2015

THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S UP FOR ANYTHING!

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

 BAD NEWS FOR CRANKY CLINTON IN A NEW POLL.


 42% FIND HER TRUSTWORTHY WHILE 47% OF AMERICANS DO NOT FIND HER TRUSTWORTHY.

37% OF AMERICANS VIEW HER UNFAVORABLY WHILE 26% VIEW HER FAVORABLY. 

 6 IN 10 AMERICANS SAY IT WAS WRONG FOR CRANKY TO USE HER OWN PERSONAL E-MAIL FOR SECRETARY OF STATE DUTIES.


REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY SNORTED AND SAID, "37% VIEW ME UNFAVORABLY?  HONEY, I HAD HIGHER UNFAVORABLES WHEN I WAS BAPTIZED AND I OVERCAME THOSE AS WELL!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


The battle has underscored how weak Tehran is militarily with the few hundred estimated Islamic State fighters being able to outstrategize Tehran and Baghdad.


 Michael Hess (UK Blasting News) puts it this way:

The US military is providing aerial intelligence to Iranian forces working against Islamic State (IS) in Tikrit, Iraq in a bid to break the hold on the besieged city. Tikrit was overrun by IS which on June 14th, 2014 committed atrocities, including the massacre of at least 800, on Iraqi Air Force trainees at the former U.S. base Speicher, converted into an air force training college. Tikrit was the site of Saddam Hussein's tomb but it has since been destroyed in the fighting.  


The Tehran alliance was supposed to provide Baghdad with a decisive victory which could be used to rally the military.  That's why Tikrit was chosen in the first place.  It was to be the red flag waved before the charging bull.  But the 'bull' lumbered towards the city for days and, when it finally got outside the city, the bull took a long, long nap.

Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) offers, "The Tikrit campaign was launched with a patchwork force of 20,000 Shiite militiamen, 3,000 Iraqi troops, and a bevy of Iranian troops, tanks, weapons and missile strikes. And in the early days of the campaign, Gen. Qassem Suleiman, leader of the Iranian Quds force, was on the ground in Tikrit."

Pete D'Amato (Daily Mail) offers:


Iran has provided artillery and other weaponry for the Tikrit battle, and senior Iranian advisers have helped Iraq coordinate the offensive. 
Iraq pointedly did not request US air support when it launched the offensive in early March and recently, the offensive has lost momentum. 
Col Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, said Wednesday the Iraqi forces have encircled Tikrit but not yet made significant inroads into the heavily defended city limits.
'They are stalled,' he said.


Before today's announcement was made, Michael B. Kelley (Business Insider) noted:



"There's just no way that the US military can actively support an offensive led by Suleimani," Christopher Harmer, a former aviator in the United States Navy in the Persian Gulf who is now an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War, told Helene Cooper of The New York Times recently. "He's a more stately version of Osama bin Laden."
Suleimani's Iraqi allies — such as the powerful Badr militia — are known for allegedly burning down Sunni villages and using power drills on enemies.
"It's a little hard for us to be allied on the battlefield with groups of individuals who are unrepentantly covered in American blood," Ryan Crocker, a career diplomat who served as the US ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, told US News.

In addition, Michael Crowley (POLITICO) explains US officials are nervous about two potential scenarios in Iraq which, "[i]n either case, U.S. officials fear, Iran could direct the Iraqi Shiite militias under its control to attack U.S. troops aiding the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant."

That fear may make Barack Obama's decision even more controversial.  But the decision to drop bombs and assist the  Baghdad-Tehran alliance -- led by Iranian general Qassem Soleimani (identified by the US government as a terrorist) -- was already controversial and questionable due to Soleimani's presence.
Deep consternation exists in Washington, among both political parties, over the appearance of US warplanes providing close air support for Shia militias and their Iranian sponsors. Some US-trained Iraqi military units and Shia militias are under investigation for committing atrocities, similar to those of Isis. The Iranian general Qassem Suleimani is believed to be playing a leadership role in what has devolved into a grinding fight to recapture Saddam Hussein’s birthplace from Isis.
“There’s going to be some tightrope-walking in saying this is an Iraqi security forces offensive and not an Iranian militia offensive,” said Christopher Harmer, a retired US navy officer and analyst with the Institute for the Study of War, who said he was “astonished” at the development.


Since 2001, the US government has identified Suleimani as a terrorist.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Chairman Isakson on Top Priorities for Senate Comm..."
"US government set to aid designated terrorist?"
"Once more on Allen Gregory"
"This bothers me"
"She built that image"
"revenge (jack)"
"One Direction"
"We can't afford another failed leader"
"NPR music"
"Emma Goldman said it first"
"Barack does it again"
"Most important Tweet of the week"
"The charmless offensive"
"THIS JUST IN! MAYBE HE CAN BUY A ROUND OF DRINKS?"




  •  





  •  

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

THIS JUST IN! MAYBE HE CAN BUY A ROUND OF DRINKS?

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


THE DOG ATE THEIR HOMEWORK, CRAPPED IT OUT ON THE LAWN AND THEN IT DECAYED. 


THAT'S THE APPARENT EXCUSE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE'S FAILURE TO GET A DEAL WITH IRAN.


FOR THE WHITE HOUSE'S CONTINUED FAILURE.


MARCH 31ST IS THE DEADLINE.


AND SO THEY'VE RUSHED SECRETARY OF BOTOX AND BULLS**T JOHN KERRY TO SWITZERLAND IN A 'DIPLOMATIC' EFFORT.


KERRY EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS, "IT CAME DOWN TO ME OR SUSAN RICE AND IT ENDED UP BEING ME BECAUSE IT WAS SAID I LOOKED BETTER IN A SWIM SUIT -- NOT TO MENTION WIND SURFING TRUNKS.  I JUST HOPE THERE'S NOT A TALENT COMPETITION, I WASN'T ABLE TO PACK MY BATONS."


FROM THE TCI WIRE:





Days ago, Ammar Karim (AFP) quoted Ameri on the topic of US air strikes, "Some of the weaklings in the army... say we need the Americans, while we say we do not need the Americans."

The loquacious Hadi al-Ameri also told AFP that Iranian Qassem Soleimani (identified by the US government as a terrorist) who is there, in Iraq, "whenever we need him,"   Jim Michaels (USA Today) notes, "The Tikrit offensive has placed the United States in an awkward position. The battle is waged largely by Shiite militias with backing from Iran. The commander of Iran's elite al-Quds Force, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, has played an active role in Iraq, CIA Director John Brennan told Fox News recently."

Hmmm.

2001?  US Treasury Department noted Executive Order 13224 by "publishing the names of five individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked."  Let's note some of it:





On September 23, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13224 (the “Order”) pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1701-1706, and the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 22 U.S.C. 287c. In the Order, the President declared a national emergency to address grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. The Order imposes economic sanctions on persons who have committed, pose a significant risk of committing, or support acts of terrorism. The President identified in the Annex to the Order, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, 13 individuals and 16 entities as subject to the economic sanctions. The Order was further amended by Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, to reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Section 1 of the Order blocks, with certain exceptions, all property and interests in property that are in or hereafter come within the United States or the possession or control of United States persons, of: (1) Foreign persons listed in the Annex to the Order; (2) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States; (3) persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order; and (4) except as provided in section 5 of the Order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of his discretion, persons determined by the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security and Justice, to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or determined to be subject to the Order or to be otherwise associated with those persons listed in the Annex to the Order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of the Order.

On October 11, 2011, the Director of OFAC, in consultation with the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Justice and other relevant agencies, designated, pursuant to one or more of the criteria set forth in subsections 1(b), 1(c) or 1(d) of the Order, five individuals whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order 13224.

The listings for the five individuals on OFAC's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons appear as follows:

Individuals


ABDOLLAHI, Hamed (a.k.a. ABDULLAHI, Mustafa); DOB 11 Aug 1960; citizen Iran; Passport D9004878 (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC].

ARBABSIAR, Manssor (a.k.a. ARBABSIAR, Mansour), 805 Cisco Valley CV, Round Rock, TX 78664; 5403 Everhardt Road, Corpus Christi, TX 78411; DOB 15 Mar 1955; alt. DOB 6 Mar 1955; POB Iran; citizen United States; Driver's License No. 07442833 (United States) expires 15 Mar 2016; Passport C2002515 (Iran); alt. Passport 477845448 (United States); Driver's License is issued by the State of Texas (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC].

SHAHLAI, Abdul Reza (a.k.a. SHAHLAEE, Abdul-Reza; a.k.a. SHAHLAI, Abdol Reza; a.k.a. SHAHLA'I, Abdolreza; a.k.a. SHAHLAI, 'Abdorreza; a.k.a. SHALAI, 'Abd-al Reza; a.k.a. SHALA'I, Abdul Reza; a.k.a. “ABU-AL-KARKH', 'Yusuf”; a.k.a. “YASIR, Hajji”; a.k.a. “YUSEF, Hajj”; a.k.a. “YUSIF, Haji”; a.k.a. “YUSIF, Hajji”), Kermanshah, Iran; Mehran Military Base, Ilam Province, Iran; DOB circa 1957 (individual) [SDGT] [IRAQ3] [IRGC].

SHAKURI, Gholam, Tehran, Iran; DOB 1964; alt. DOB 1965; alt. DOB 1966 (individual) [SDGT] [IRGC].

SOLEIMANI, Qasem (a.k.a. SALIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SOLAIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SOLEMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SOLEYMANI, Ghasem; a.k.a. SOLEYMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SULAIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SULAYMAN, Qasim; a.k.a. SULEMANI, Qasem); DOB 11 Mar 1957; POB Qom, Iran; citizen Iran; nationality Iran; Diplomatic Passport 008827 (Iran) issued 1999 (individual) [SDGT] [SYRIA] [NPWMD] [IRGC].
Dated: October 11, 2011. Adam J. Szubin,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.



Did you catch the last one?




SOLEIMANI, Qasem (a.k.a. SALIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SOLAIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SOLEMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SOLEYMANI, Ghasem; a.k.a. SOLEYMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SULAIMANI, Qasem; a.k.a. SULAYMAN, Qasim; a.k.a. SULEMANI, Qasem); DOB 11 Mar 1957; POB Qom, Iran; citizen Iran; nationality Iran; Diplomatic Passport 008827 (Iran) issued 1999 (individual) [SDGT] [SYRIA] [NPWMD] [IRGC].





The US government labels him as a terrorist.

But US President Barack Obama is now going to let him have access to US intelligence and will apparently be announcing air strikes in support of the terrorist.


Samia Nakhoul (Dawn) reports:


Iran may be serious about a nuclear deal that ends its pariah status and the crippling sanctions. But it has been maximising its strength across the Middle East and, because Iranian forces and allied militias are spearheading the fight against IS in Iraq and Syria, Sunni Arab leaders believe the United States will do nothing to stop this.
This month, US Secretary of State John Kerry assured Saudi leaders there would be no “grand bargain” with Tehran attached to any deal. Yet in a news conference at which Kerry acknowledged that Soleimani was involved in Tikrit, his host, Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, almost exploded.
“The situation in Tikrit is a prime example of what we’re worried about,” said Prince Saud. “Iran is taking over Iraq.” That is why, regional analysts say, it is not so much the prospective nuclear deal that is panicking the Gulf and its Sunni allies such as Egypt, but what a US-Iran rapprochement may bring.
Sultan al-Qassemi, a commentator in the United Arab Emirates, says: “The Iranian deal is a game-changer for the region and I think it is going to encourage Iran to pursue an even more assertive foreign policy.
“This deal is the grand bargain Kerry is denying it is. It is giving Iran carte blanche in exchange for empty promises. Iran is on the ascendant. Iran has the winning hand in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.” Riad Kahwaji, head of the Dubai-based INEGMA think tank, warned of “all-out sectarian war” between Sunnis and Shias.



Are you confused?  Maybe you're remembering that John Kerry testified before a Senate Committee on March 11th.  Maybe you're remembering Ava's report on the hearing:



"I have nothing but respect for the Committee's prerogatives," he insisted at the hearing.
He insisted at the hearing where he snarled at Senator Mark Rubio that he was flat out wrong.
Rubio wasn't flat out wrong.
Regional leaders in the Middle East are nervous about a possible treaty between the US and Iran.  That's not news.  Or it's not new news.  But Kerry wanted to lie and snarl at Rubio to get his facts.  Kerry's the one who needs to get his facts.
Sunni leaders in the region have seen the persecution of Sunnis in Iraq.  They are concerned about what deal Shi'ite Iran could work out with the US.
Are they opposed to any and all deals?
I doubt it.
But Rubio didn't claim they were.
He only noted they were concerned.
And Kerry snarled at him that he was flat out wrong.



Who's flat out wrong today?

Because it looks like John Kerry is flat out wrong.

It looks like Senator Mark Rubio did know what he was talking about.






RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Isakson, Blumenthal Statement on VA’s Expansion of..."
"VA Choice Card 40-Mile Rule Change: A Step in the ..."
"Look who's calling for 'accountability' now"

"CBS' Stalker"
"
Arrow disappoints"
"X-Files"
"revenge (frenchie gets hit by the taxi)"
"Allen Gregory"
"Hillary's lack of accountability"
"Goya"
"Art"
"Israel, Hillary and more"
"He was never about peace"
"The Inciter In Chief"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY CLAIMS CREDIT!"
 
  •  

  •  
     
     


Tuesday, March 24, 2015

THIS JUST IN! BARRY CLAIMS CREDIT!

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


GEORGE ZIMMERMAN HAS DECLARED FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O INCITED RACIAL TENSIONS WITH HIS REMARKS INSISTING IF HE HAD A SON THE CHILD WOULD LOOK LIKE TRAYVON MARTIN.




 REACHED FOR COMMENT BARRY O CHUCKLED AND TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "HELLS YEAH!"





FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Oh, the worthless and the pathetic.  Let's start there.

The World Can't Wait, Cindy Sheehan and a lot of others thought they could hijack the anniversary of the Iraq War to pimp their pet causes.

No one turned out.

Most locations were lucky to mount a baker's dozen worth of 'protesters.'

Debra Sweet's embarrassing organization offered suggested Tweets ahead of the 'days' of protests.


The suicide rate among recent veterans is 50% higher than for civilians - these wars are wrong & we know it. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-veteran-suicide-20150115-story.html
US veteran suicides are as high as 8,000 per year, exceeding U.S. death rates on battlefield
http://www.veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html
http://iava.org/campaign/combatingsuicide/



I don't know how those are Tweets, but okay.


I'm sorry, they want you to be sympathetic to veterans?

They want to talk about pressure on veterans?

I'm sorry, Cindy Sheehan and Debra Sweet attacked and savaged Chris Kyle.

That's why I'm not promoting their crazy.

We did a parody of World Can't Wait at Third ("The World Can Wait (Parody)"") and that was February 8th.  I didn't want to do anything else to draw attention to these pathetic souls.

Chris Kyle was not a mercenary.

He did what he was trained to do and what he was ordered to do.

If you're unhappy with that, you take up with the government of the United States.

You don't trash him.

And if you do trash him, then stop pretending you give a damn about veterans because you clearly do not give a damn.

Imagine a US sniper who's returned to the US and feels that the US does not need to be in Iraq still.  He or she may look for people who feel similar.  But reading Cindy and Debra's attacks on Chris Kyle, would that veteran feels he or she would be welcomed by Cindy and Debra's groups?

Probably not.

The enemy is not veterans. 

The enemy is a government that lies.

But all the weak protests offered was hatred.

It's really funny as they carved out this group and that group and ran their oppression Olympics -- to such a degree that even their hero Karl Marx wouldn't have been allowed at the protests were he alive today.

Whether you think Occupy was a movement or not, what it did -- at its best -- was attempt to united.  It was the 99% versus the 1%.
 
 


Recommended:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Iranian military involvement in Iraq denied by som..."
"Hejira"
"Chairman Miller Calls for Immediate Firings after ..."

"revenge (nolan)"
"The fake tears"
"Cracker Nicole Colson can't stop lying"
"The best news"
"Bad news for Barry"
"No treats, just tricks"
"Someone else is needed"
"Forced thaw"
"Iraqi Christians"
"60 Minutes"
"Look who's weighing in"
"THIS JUST IN! DEFENDING THE FAIR MAIDEN!"