Thursday, November 15, 2012

He really is a jerk

Thursday, almost the weekend.  I can't wait.  And I'm starving.  So this may be brief.

First up, Barry Grey (WSWS) has a really knock-the-air-out-of-your-chest report:


Obama's pretense of “fairness” and concern for working people, against the backdrop of the supposed looming disaster of the “fiscal cliff,” is a cynical sham. It is a cover for a calculated and ruthless assault on all that remains of the social reforms of the 20th century—most centrally, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—combined with a restructuring of the tax system that will cut taxes for corporations and the rich and increase the tax burden on working people.

The far-reaching and reactionary substance of Obama's social policy emerges very clearly in secret documents that were leaked last weekend relating to negotiations in the summer of 2011 between the White House and Republican House Speaker John Boehner over raising the US debt limit. In response to Republican demands for massive spending cuts in return for an agreement on raising the debt limit, Obama proposed a “grand bargain” to slash the federal deficit by $4 trillion over ten years through a combination of cuts in social programs and increased revenues from “comprehensive tax reform.”

Obama proposed more than $2 in cuts for every $1 dollar in revenue increases ($2.8 trillion in cuts, $1.2 trillion in increased tax revenues). However, the talks broke down due to opposition to any tax increases among House Republicans.

This led to the deal to raise the debt limit that set the stage for the more than $700 billion in automatic across-the-board spending cuts and tax increases, beginning January 1, 2013, that are a major component of the so-called “fiscal cliff.” (See: “What is the fiscal cliff”?).

Speaking on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” program last Sunday, Washington Post investigative journalist and associate editor Bob Woodward announced that he had obtained a copy of the secret final offer from Obama to Boehner for a “grand bargain” on austerity and tax “reform.” NBC posted a portion of the document on the “Meet the Press” web site.

Regarding the document, Woodward said, “But what it shows is a willingness to cut all kinds of things, like TRICARE, which is the sacred health insurance program for the military, for military retirees; to cut Social Security; to cut Medicare. And there are some lines in there about, ‘We want to get tax rates down, not only for individuals, but for businesses.’ So Obama and the White House were willing to go quite far.”


What a bitch Barry is.  Social Security?  F**k him.  And TRICARE?  He's such a piece of s**t.  And so is the screwy Cult of St. Barack.

If he pulls this off, if he guts this stuff, then every member of the Cult of St. Barack better be prepared to spend the rest of their lives apologizing for voting for that piece of s**t to begin with.

He's a liar and a faux Democrat.  He whored for the corporations.  That was obvious in 2008 when AT&T paid for the convention.  Of course they paid.  They didn't want to be fined or punished for their illegal spying.  And Barack, who promised in the primaries that they would pay, immediately declared immunity was what they needed once the primary was over.

Barack is a piece of trash.  He doesn't care about anyone but himself and that should have been obvious with the soaring rate of unemployment in the African-American community.

He is a whore bought and sold by the corporations.

And, I repeat, shame on those who supported this asshole.  They should have known better in 2008.  But I can forgive them for that.  For 2012?  Hell no. 

The cypher had a paper trail.  He was a War Monger.  He cracked down on Occupy.  He attacked whistleblowers.  He gave corporations tons of our money -- our tax dollars -- and then turned around and said, "We're headed for a fiscal cliff!" 

Asshole.

He's a liar. 

Supposedly he believes in God.  If so, he better be making his peace because Jesus doesn't look kindly on those who piss on the poor.  I'm Catholic.  I see Barack spending an eternity in purgatory. 




Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, November 15, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's State of Law continues spreading rumors, Nouri's State of Law continues not to grasp what a constitution is (let alone what it says),  Moqtada sums up what Nouri's attempts to end  the ration card system really meant, and more.
 
 
Let's start with Benghazi because, like Elaine, I'm getting real damn tired of Our Liar Of The Left.  Today OLOFL calls out CNN's Anderson Cooper and Erin Burnett, ABC's Jake Tapper, PBS' Kwame Holman and others.  Could they all be wrong?
 
Certainly.  Anyone can be wrong.  I'm wrong all the time.  That's part of life. 
 
I'm also not concerned with 'tone' -- with one exception -- because you should call people out in your own voice and not someone elses, we need more voices hitting more notes not a choir of tenors all hitting the same damn note.  My exception?  OLOFL's sexism is well known and  I did notice that Erin Burnett gets a special kind of attack different from the men. 
 
Today OLOTL accuses the journalists of many things including "cherry picking."  He's the one who's cherry picking.  Susan Rice went on television six days after the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.  She went on multiple programs.   Journalists have to condense.  That is not the same thing as "cherry picking."  They're dealing with the totality of Susan Rice's presentation.
 
Some try to argue she's the messenger.  Yes, I believe she was confirmed to be that.  I believe that's what an ambassador does.  But the American people don't give a damn if she was just the messenger or not.  She went on television and spoke about Benghazi.  She was flat out wrong.  Now if  anyone wants to argue that Susan Rice is incompetent, he might get some takers.  But to argue that she couldn't help it and blah blah blah?  No.  That ship sailed a long time ago.  She was going on every network Sunday morning.
 
CBS' Face The Nation, NBC's Meet The Press, ABC's This Week, CNN's State of the Union, Fox News Sunday -- am I missing one?  All links go to transcripts -- Fox News was smart enough to put their video and transcript together.   She presented the same bad talking points over and over.  Five live interviews that morning? She should have known her facts before she gave the first one, she should have known her facts and been up to date before the first interview (which dismisses the claim that Saturday evening a new view emerged and poor Susan Rice woke up Sunday morning, took out her curlers and stepped in front of the camera).  She used "spontaneous" in every interview (Somerby attacks Anderson for noting "spontaneous").  Susan Rice was the messenger because the State Dept wasn't going to lie.  Susan Rice shouldn't have been on TV.  It should have been Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or someone else at the State Dept,  Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, etc.  Susan Rice?  Please.  The US Ambassador to the United Nations?
 
That was above her head.  If she's stupid enough to think she can ace it, then she's stupid enough to earn the blame for her idiotic statements which -- even in the official White House timeline -- are now out of date and wrong.
 
I've done press junkets.  As I go from interview to interview, I have someone telling me if any information has changed and I'm revising my remarks to include that -- and that's the entertainment industry.  Susan Rice should have known the information that came in on Saturday before she spoke on Sunday.  If no one bothered to inform her, that's also on her because she should have demanded it when she agreed to do the programs, "I need to know every update that comes in between now and when I step on camera."
 
Is that hard? Well so is life.  And if you're going to go on TV to speak about an attack that claimed the lives of 4 Americans (Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Chris Stevens) and speak on behalf of the US government, your job is to be prepared.
 
She wasn't or she lied.  She was incompetent or she lied. 
 
Actually, she may have been incompetent and a liar. 
 
I see this as a lie, ". . . what we understand to be the assessment at present" (Face The Nation, similar words used on other programs).  That's a lie.  That's, according to the White House, the assessment early Saturday afternoon as she got a briefing.  It wasn't Saturday evening's assessment.  It certainly wasn't Sunday morning's assessment.
 
Again, if you're going on TV to do live interviews and you are representing the US government, you need the most current information.  She didn't do the work required.  Maybe she wasn't smart enough to know what work was required?  Maybe her personal time Saturday and Sunday was more important to her?  I have no idea.  But she went on TV Sunday morning and gave out-of-date information according to the White House's version of events.
 
She should have cared a little less about protecting the White House and a little more about serving the American people.  Barack Obama is not paying her, the American people are.  She works for the American people and she takes an oath to the Constitution, not to a office, not to a person.
 
She wants to be Secretary of State and Barack wants her to as well.  If nominated, she'll be jumping over Senator John Kerry which should raise eyebrows considering her awful record in the last four years in terms of public diplomacy.  And that's the only record she has.  Yet she's going to be put in charge of the US State Dept which is in charge of Iraq?  This liar or incompetent or both is going to be put over the billions of dollars the US is still pouring into Iraq?  America needs someone trustworthy in that position.  Susan Rice is a joke to many American people.  She's not up to the job and she comes in as a joke.  This is how Barack Obama wants to waste his time post-election? 
 
I thought the second term was going to be about getting things done.  I thought this was the term Barack was going to get to work.  So choosing between a qualified nominee (John Kerry) who is an automatic approved by the Senate nominee and between the unqualified Susan Rice who already has senators opposed to her, Barack's going to waste America's time with Susan Rice?  (Because he's a senator, John Kerry's an automatic confirmation.  That's how it goes historically.  The Senate rushes to confirm its current and former colleagues.)  So America's going to have to suffer through weeks of drama because Barack can't stop fixating on Susan Rice?  And let's be clear that, if Rice had any integrity, she'd look at the situation herself, realize what a liability she is and announce she was not interested in the post. 
 
The phrase the White House and its employees need to learn is "for the good of the country." 
 
 
It's a phrase many leaders and officials should use.  Take Nouri al-Maliki's Baghdad-based government which, according to Alsumaria News, had to issue an announcement today that they are not holding any Saudi royals nor planning to execute them.  The message came via Minister of Justice Hassan Shammari who also stated that the Suadi prisoners don't necessarily give their real names when arrested in Iraq.  How they are then able to determine that no Saudi princes are in custody (the rumor circulating had been that Iraq was gearing up to execute a Saudi prince) is not addressed.  Of course, Nouri's screwed up the country so bad that it's not just rumors about foreigners but about Iraqis.  Dar Addustour reports that someone with the Supreme Judicial Council is stating this week that the judiciary has issued arrest warranges for two Iraqiya members of Parliament: Khalid al-Alwani and Adnan al-Janabi.  Both rumors speak to the distrust Nouri has sewn.  Iraq's relations with its Arab neighbors would seem terrible had Nouri not engaged in the lengthy verbal attack on Turkey for most of 2012.  Nouri's relations with political rivals is always shaky but more so with members of Iraqiya whom Nouri has repeatedly targeted. 
 
Iraq, after all, is the only country currently with a sitting vice president who's been convicted of terrorism.  Nouri swore an arrest warrant on Tareq al-Hashemi.  Nouri's kangaroo court convicted Tareq.  Not a surprise.  February 16th, a press conference was held and Baghdad judges explained Tareq was guilty of terrorism and one judge declared that Tareq had tried to kill him.  But, thing is,  the trial didn't even start until May.  Months before the trial started, the judiciary declared him guilty in a press conference.  That tells you the level of 'justice' in Iraq.  Even before you factor in the torture confessions, the abduction of Tareq's office staff, the refusal to allow him to call witnesses and so much more.
 
Though the verdict isn't taken seriously outside of Iraq (and Iran), al-Hashemi was convicted of terrorism and he remains Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi because he's never been removed from office.  Even now, Nouri doesn't have the votes required in the Parliament to remove him from office. The editorial board of the Saudi Gazette notes today:
 
Unfortunately Maliki robbed his government of much Sunni support when he decided to prosecute leading Sunni politician and vice-president Tariq Al-Hashemi for running death squads.
Hashemi fled, perhaps significantly first to Kurdish Iraq and then abroad.
The Sunni leader has since been tried in his absence and sentenced to death.
 
In Iraq, the political crisis has not ended.  The March 2010 elections were followed by Political Stalemate I as Nouri stomped his feet because Iraqiya beat his own State of Law meaning someone from Iraqiya should be prime minister-designate.  But Nouri had the White House on his side.  So after eigh months of nothing happening, the political blocs signed off on the US-negotiated contract entitled the Erbil Agreement.  Nouri used it to grab his second term and then refused to honor the contract.  Since the summer of 2011, Iraqiya, the Kurds and Moqtada al-Sadr have been calling for the Erbil Agreement to be implemented.  This is Political Stalemate II which Nouri turned into a political crisis when he began targeting Sunnis and/or members of Iraqiya. 
 
 All Iraq News reports Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement yesterday where he explained that the effort to cancel the ration cards was an effort to control the markets, that it was not about addressing corruption and that it was the start of an attempt to rig the upcoming elections.  That's a very strong statement from Moqtada and part of the efforts to draw a line between him and Nouri and to set him up to be the next prime minister.  It's the sort of leadership Jalal Talabani fails to exhibit repeatedly.   Background on the food-rations card system, from Monday's snapshot:

Last Tuesday, Nouri's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh announced the cancellation of the program. There was a huge pushback that grew and grew -- from politicians, from clerics, from the people until Friday when it really couldn't be ignored. The program has been in place since 1991 meaning that it is all over half of Iraqis know (Iraq has a very young population, the median age has now risen to 21). It allowed Iraqis to get basic staples such as flour sugar, rice, etc. As the clerics, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, noted, this move would hurt the people who are already struggling economically. It was also an idiotic political move to make. In April, provinicial elections will be held. Nouri's already in campaign mode and this very unpopular move did not help him there. The smartest thing politically would have been to go into a full retreat on the proposal and announce that you had heard the people, to flatter them and make it appear you listened. 
Saturday, there was a moment when it looked like Nouri might grasp that. All Iraq News reportedAlsumaria reported Dawa announced that they had nothing to do with the decision and they're also tried to insist at the same time that it wasn't Nouri's decision. Kurdistan Alliance MP Sharif Soliman told All Iraq News that those responsible for the decision are trying to make up excuses and push the blame elsewhere. The Kurdistan Alliance's Mohsen Saadoun told Alsumaria that Nouri is responsible for this decision. the Cabinet of Ministers will hold an emergency meeting on the issue. Nouri's political slate is State of Law, his political party is Dawa. How unpopular is the move to cancel the food-ration program?
Today Alsumaria reports that the food program is not getting the axe. Instead, the people will be able to decide if they would like to remain on the existing system or receive cash. When you tell people they can remain on the ration card system or they can get cash, when you tell that to people in a bad economy with many bills, they will be tempted to go for the cash. The ration card is the better system. But there are bills owed that have to be paid and there is the hope in people that things have to get better. So they will tell themselves that they can make it right now with the cash and that, in a few months or a year, fate will provide and things will be better. In the meantime, they've been moved off the progam and the prices -- as Sistani, politicans and the people have noted -- will sky rocket. So the money will be of little use to them then.

Al Mada reports that a poll found 69.5% of Iraqis surveyed felt that cancellation of the ration cards would negatively effect their families' standard of living and 81% opposed doing away with the ration cards.  Hassan Latif al-Zubaidi (Niqash) reports:

Various reports from as far back as 2004 have concluded that scrapping the ration card system would lead to lower living standards in Iraq in general.  There are a large number of food-insecure individuals in Iraq -- early estimates range from between 11 and 16 percent of the population -- and analysts have suggested that that number could double or even triple should the ration card system be scrapped.
So for the time being, the Iraqi government, haveing rescinded its earlier decision to get rid of the system altogether, has decided that citizens may now have a choice -- choose the ration card which allegedly supplies around ICD12,000 worth of goods or a cash payout of IQD15,000 per month. 
Of course there are no guarantees that the cash will be used by the needy to buy the food they need and there's obviously still plenty of room for social welfare fraud and for corruption.  Only one thing seems certain when it comes to the ration card: with elections coming up in Iraq soon -- they're planned for early 2013 -- it also seems highly unlikely there will be any further major "improvements" made to the ration card system in the near future.
Shaeen Mufti (Rudaw) quotes MP SHorsh Haji who serves on Iraq's Economic Committee in Parliament, "Making decisions one day and revising them the next proves that the government is without a plan and doesn't know what is best for the people."
 
 
Following the idiotic decision to cancel the program, Nouri made other questionable decisions.  For example, taking an axe to a contract with another country.  October 9th, Nouri was strutting across the world stage as he inked a $4.2 billion weapons deal with Russia. Then something happened 30 days later and the status of the deal became in question. Was it all just buyer's remorse over a big-ticket item? Saturday, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Joe Sterling (CNN) reported:

Iraq's prime minister has canceled a recently signed arms deal with Russia after "suspicions over corruption" surfaced, his spokesman told CNN on Saturday.
Under the $4.2 billion deal forged last month, Russia would deliver attack helicopters and mobile air-defense systems to Iraq.
 

Amani Aziz (Al Mada) reported that there are senior Iraqi government officials who are involved with a brother of Russian President Vladimir Putin. All Iraq News noted there are calls for Nouri to step forward and clear his name. Al Rafidayn added Nouri spokesperson Ali al-Moussawi announced that the deal is off. New contracts may be needed, he said, because weapons are, but the deal is off. AP hedged the bets  going with language about the deal being "reconsidered" and in "turnaround." Reuters spent the day providing constant updates and in their third one they noted, "In a confusing exchange, the announcement by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's office was immediately contradicted by the acting defence minister who denied the corruption charges and said the Russian arms deals were still valid." RIA Novosti reminded, "At the time the deal was announced in October, the Russian press had hailed it as the country's largest since 2006. Under the contract, Moscow is to supply 30 Mil Mi-28NE night/all-weather capable attack helicopters, and 50 Pantsir-S1 gun-missile short-range air defense systems."
 
On Monday,  Al Mada reported today that Iraqiya is demanding Nouri provide a report to Parliament explaining the details of the weapons deal with Russia.  Alsumaria reports today that Nouri is insisting that these "defensive" weapons are needed to protect Iraq.  Also today, All Iraq News reports State of Law MP Abudl Salam al-Maliki has accused Abdul Aziz Narowi, Iraq's Ambassador to Russia, of working with the Russian Defense Minister in the interest of the KRG and not Baghdad.  There's a full-on push to salvage Nouri's image after the mess that the $4.2 billion deal between Russia and Iraq has become.  They might need to worry also about how the crumbling deal appears in Russia.  Kitabat reports that the Russian government is outraged over the accusations being made which include that Russian President Vladimir Putin took bribes and kickbacks.
 
 
 
 
Alsumaria also reports that Basra Province has purchased 10 trained dogs for the Basra Police Command.  The dogs have been trained to sniff out bombs.  This may remind many of all the money Nouri wasted on bomb detecting 'techonlogy' -- a wand that the US military ridiculed and that the British government ended up outlawing.  You hold the expensive stick and run in place behind a car and it's 'activated.'  But it doesn't do anything.  It was a con job.  Instead of demanding a refund, Nouri chose to eat the costs in an attempt to salvage his own reputation. 
 
The Baghdad Trade Fair just concluded and it wasn't a boost for Nouri's image either.  AFP reports:



Excessive red tape, rampant corruption, an unreliable judicial system and still-inadequate security, as well as a poorly trained workforce and a state-dominated economy all continue to plague Iraq, which completed its biggest trade fair in 20 years last week to much domestic acclaim.
The various difficulties of doing business in Iraq cast doubt on efforts to raise $1-trillion in investment income over the coming decade that officials say is needed to rebuild its battered economy.
 
Maybe Nouri thought he'd get a ribbon just for showing up?  The last week of March, Nouri oversaw the Arab League Summitt in Baghdad.  It was a bust, but damned if the press didn't try to play it as a success.  From the March 30th snapshot:
 
 
 
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) wants you to know that, as Sly Stone once sang, everybody is a star, that we're all winners.   Probably Charlotte Caffey and Jane Wiedlin were closer to the truth with, "We're all dreamers, we're all whores" ("This Town," first appears on  the Go-Gos' Beauty and the Beat). Journalists are supposed to be critical thinkers not advance men for the company. The Arab League Summit was only a success if we're all toddlers and everyone gets a trophy for showing up.  Or if you're stupid enough to think something's true just because a two-bit thug like Nouri al-Maliki says it is.
There are 22 countries in the Arab League.  Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put the number of Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed out that Qatar, Saudi Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who sent lower-level officials to the summit. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail) explains that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of Qatar) declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq' majority Shiites to stop what he called the marginalization of its minority Sunnis." Yussef Hamza (The National) offers, "Iraq has looked to the summit, the first it has hosted in a generation, to signal its emergence from years of turmoil, American occupation and isolation. It wanted the summit to herald its return to the Arab fold. But the large number of absentees told a different story."  That's reality.
[. . .]
There are 22 countries in the Arab League.  Hamza Hendawi and Lara Jakes (AP) put the number of Arab League leaders who attended at 10 and they pointed out that Qatar, Saudi Arabi, Morocco and Jordan were among those who sent lower-level officials to the summit. Patrick Martin (Globe & Mail) explains that Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Bin Jabr Al Thani (Prime Minister of Qatar) declared on television that Qatar's "low level of representation" was meant to send "a 'message' to Iraq' majority Shiites to stop what he called the marginalization of its minority Sunnis." Yussef Hamza (The National) offers, "Iraq has looked to the summit, the first it has hosted in a generation, to signal its emergence from years of turmoil, American occupation and isolation. It wanted the summit to herald its return to the Arab fold. But the large number of absentees told a different story."  That's reality.

That's reality and AFP reported reality on the Baghdad Trade Fair.
 
Nouri's a disaster and yet he wants a third term as prime minister.  The parliamentary elections planned for 2014 are supposed to determine that.   Members of Parliament are elected, the bloc with the most seats is supposed to get first crack at forming a govenrment so the president names someone from that bloc to be prime minister-designate and that person then has 30 days to form a complete Cabinet or someone else is named prime minister-designate.

The 2014 election is supposed to determine that.  Supposed to.  Iraq's had parliamentary elections twice now -- 2005 and 2010.  In both instances, the United States government determined the outcome.  First, the Bush administration installed Nouri in 2006 (Ibrahim al-Jafaari was the choice of Parliament).  Second, the Barack administration gave second place Nouri a second term in 2010 via an extra-Constitutional contract known as the Erbil Agreement.

If the White House plans to again pick the Iraqi prime minister in 2014, could they let Iraq know now before money's spent printing ballots and adding security to the various polling places?

Al Mada notes the efforts to pass a bill that would limit the prime minister post to two terms only.   Some reports have said there are 150 backers in Parliament, some say 130.  A simple majority is needed.  That's half-plus-one of the MPs (there are 325 members of Parliament).   So that's already very close to the target number.  Press TV adds: "Maliki's supporters also say that they will try to split support for the term limit campaign by adjusting the law to include other posts such as Kurdistan Regional Government president and parliament speaker."

I am sure that they did that say that.  I don't doubt Press TV's accuracy.  Mainly because the members of State of Law repeatedly demonstrate stupidity.


It might help State of Law to read the Iraqi Constitution at some point.  Familiarizing themselves with something they swear an oath to would be a good idea and it would also help them look a little less stupid in public.  The first clause of Article 117 would probably be most helpful to State of Law at this point along with the first and second clauses of Article 121.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Baghdad-based government the right to declare anything about the KRG president or prime minister.  

State of Law MP Sami al-Askari has been talking trash about political rivals for the last  few days.  From Tuesday's snapshot:

Yesterday,  Alsumaria reported that State of Law MP Sami al-Askari is calling Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi a failure and he told Alsumaria that the Kurds are playing up the Sunni - Shi'ite divide.  Today Kurdistan Alliance MP and leader Muhsin al-Sadoun tells Alsumaria that al-Askari's remarks are not helpful and that the suffering that has taken place has been under Nouri al-Maliki's leadership as people have increasingly lost confidence in the government's ability to provide as a result of the vast corruption and the failure to provide security.   al-Askari hasn't stopped trashing politicians.  Al Rafidayn reports he went on Alsumaria television tonight and trashed Iraqiya's Osama al-Nujaifi who is the Speaker of Parliament.  He stated that al-Nujaifi is indebted to the Kurds who pushed for him to be Speaker of Parliament, implying that he does their bidding.  Iraqiya came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections.  After Nouri refused to honor the Constitution and give up the post of prime minister and Jalal was bound and determined to remain prime minister, that only left one post for the political bloc that got the most votes.  Iraqiya was always going to get the spot and al-Askari knows that, he's just attempting to inflame tensions with his bitchy nature.

It's so bad that finally, today, President Jalal Talabani speaks.  Alsumaria reports Jalal said he could no longer remain silent in light of all the accusations al-Askari has been making.  Talabani states that whether al-Askari meant to or not, the statements drive a wedge and break the bonds between the political blocs.
Al Mada reports that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc doesn't expect the crisis to end anytime soon and feels that even the meetings President Jalal Talabani has been holding are not going to be enough to resolve the crisis.  All Iraq News notes National Alliance MP Fawzi Akram Tarzi is stating that the only way to resolve the crisis is to create a supreme body tasked with that goal.  Al Mada informs that Jalal himself says that they need to respect the Constitution and to honor signed agreements (which most likely means the Erbil Agreement).  All Iraq News notes that the Kurdistan Democratic Party is saying the fact that Talabani has remained at his home in Sulaimaniya and not traveling around Iraq.  Sheikh Aziz Shair is predicting that the issue will not be resolved naturally and will instead continue until 2014 when parliamentary elections are again held.
 
 
 
 

Finally, Alsumaria reports that an armed attack in Sulaymaniyah Province left one person dead and another injured, a Diyala Province roadside bombing left two people injured and 18 people were arrested for 'terrorism' today as mass arrests continued.
 
 


Posted by at

Jobs and Fringe

Hump day and Bloomberg's reporting Texas Instruments is cutting 1700 jobs.  I thought it was supposed to be over, the lay offs.  I thought Barack Obama turned around the economy.  I thought his re-election meant honey flowed from water fountains and gold grew in front lawns.

The media has covered for Barry O so much.  It's so disgusting. 

So 1700 people will be out of jobs.  That will create a vicious cycle, as I'm sure you know.  TI?  My dad has a solar calculator he's had forever -- since before I was born.  It's sturdy and has held up.  It's TI.  That's really all I know them as, sorry.  The people who make a calculator that doesn't break down. 

I'm sorry for the 1700 who are losing their jobs.  I'm especially sorry that they're losing their jobs at a time when it doesn't appear there are any new jobs being created.

Okay, TV.  Fringe airs Fridays on Fox.  I'm one week behind because I go by streaming, remember.  "An Origin Story" is the episode I'm covering.

I didn't get the ending.  I was going to look it up but when I went to Fox to grab the link, I saw an ad for this week's show.  I get the ending now.

Also the ad noted that, "The final seven episodes, all new Friday."  I knew this was the last season but I didn't realize that there were only seven episodes left.  I'm assuming that except for Christmas -- maybe Thanksgiving too -- they're going to air new episodes every Friday night.  That should mean the show will be off by the end of January. 

I didn't realize it was going to end so quickly. 

So Etta died the episode before this and they're dealing with it.  Olivia's shoving it under.  At one point, Walter gives her a video to watch and she won't and tells him it's all she can do to just manage each day right now.  (Etta was Olivia and Peter's daughter.)  Peter's a little more open about grieving but he's turned it into revenge.

He tortures a Watcher.  There's a plan to open up a portal to another dimension and so they need to stop it.  And the rebels have a Watcher.  So Peter questions him to figure out how to build the device that will stop the Watcher's device.

He bases it on the twitches and stuff like that.  He tells the Watcher that Watchers aren't the only ones who can read people.

So a rebel, Olivia, Walter and Peter take the device to the place where the portal will open.  For a moment, it shoves everything back to the other side.  Then, as they're walking away, it starts pushing trucks out.  The trucks have devices that will make the air better for the Watchers but harder for humans to breathe.

Peter's furious.  He goes back to the rebel camp and tells the guard outside that he can leave.  He goes in and tortures the Watcher.

There are bits I'm leaving out but I don't think they're important.  What is important is the ending.  Peter's tortured the Watcher and removed a thing from him.  He puts it to the back of his skull and it goes in.

So what is it?

I thought the Watchers were born that way.  Nope.  They have that little implant that allows them to do a lot of what they do.

So the title of the episode is probably about Peter's origin.

However, at one point, Olivia's looking at the future and sees posters of Etta up proclaiming her a hero.  So it might also have referred to that or just to that.

Other thoughts?

Where is Nina?

Has she been on even once?

I remember her with Walter at the end of the last season.  But I don't think she's been on since.  Am I wrong?

What is this season's answer?

I think it's Olivia2 that we haven't seen since the episode last season when the portal between the two worlds was closed.

I felt like we had to see her again already because she was too important to the show.  Remember, she shows up season two.  And she's a big part of the show.

However, with the Watchers using the portal thing in the Origin episode, it really makes me think they have to bring back Olivia2.

What are your guesses?

I do not want what Peter did kept from Olivia.  There are not that many episodes left.  Get the news to Olivia and do it quickly.  There's no time to drag things out this season.


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Wednesday, November 14, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue,  a rape takes place and a father is ordered to execute the person found to be the rapist, terrorist Daqduq killed 5 Americans but Barack's big concern was that Iraq not release him from prison until after the election, Daqduq has been released, 5 dead Americans don't matter to the White House press corps which refuses to ask Barack about the release at today's press conference, Barack stands by Susan The War Hawk Rice (for now), and more.
 
Today Iraq was yet again slammed with bombings.  In a month of violence that had already seen 80 die so far through yesterday (Iraq Body Count's count), bombs left many dead and injured.  It didn't look like it was going to be that kind of day to the security forces and Nouri's government.  Early this morning in Baghdad, Alsumaria was trumpeting the fact that 3 members of al Qaeda in Iraq had surrendered outside of Ramadi.   How quickly it all changed.
 
Wang Yuanyuan (Xinhua) offers, "The deadliest attack occurred in the oil-rich province of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, when four car bombs killed a total of nine people and wounded some 32 others, a provincial police source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity." Al Rafidayn also calls that the deadliest attack of the day.  When the press is ranking the day's attacks, you know it's a day of deadly violence and Deutsche Welle adds, "The violence comes a day before Muharram, the Islamic new year."

Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports, "In Kirkuk, a city disputed between Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen, there were at least three car bombs: one against the offices of a major Kurdish party, one targeted a Turkmen party office, and another that hit a major road.  That was in addition to car bombs in the city of Hilla, a Shia town.  And one here in Baghdad that targted an army general [General Qassim Nouri -- Prensa Latina reports that the general's bodyguard was killed in the bombing].  All in all, these seem to be the major targets that have been frequent targets of violence: security forces, Shia and, increasingly, political parties in Kirkuk."  All Iraq News says 9 people were killed and thirty-eight were injured.  Shukriyah Rauf tells AFP, "My child was killed! His friends were killed! There is no security hear, our homes were destroyed!"
 
Alsumaria notes that an assassination attempt took place in Kirkuk with a bombing targeting the Governor of Diyala Omar Humairi as he was entering Kirkuk Province from the south.  He was not harmed and security forces swarmed the area.  On the Baghdad bombing, Alsumaria reports it was outside the Ishtar Sheraton Hotel in Firdos Square and, in addition to claiming 1 life, and left four other people injured (Mohammed Twafeeq reports on the hotel bombing for CNN),  a bombing in Wasit Province, just north of Kut, near a restaurant claimed 3 lives and left fifteen injured. while a mortar attack near a Falluja gravel plant left three workers injured.  BBC News offers a photo essay of the Kirkuk and Baghdad bombings here.  AFP has a photo essay here.  Yasir Ghazi and Christine Hauser (New York Times) have a good article on the day's violence.


On the Hilla bombing, Reuters quotes city official Hamza Kadhim stating, "A car bomb exploded near a secondary school for girls and a crowded poultry market, leaving four dead, including innocent students.  It's a real vicious terrorist act."  Press TV adds eleven female students were left injured in the attack.  All Iraq News reports the bombing left over 12 dead and over sixty injured. 

The US press largely ignored Mosul.   All Iraq News, citing a security source, reports a Mosul bombing injured a military officer and this took place at the University of Mosul where, here's the disturbing part, security forces closed all doors to bar students and faculty from leaving a campus they thought under attack.  All Iraq News updates the story to note the officer held the rank of Captain and was evacuated to the hospital before the security forces began closing the doors (and trapping students and faculty on a campus with bombs).   In addition, two other bombs were found inside the university (they were disarmed), one at the entrance to the Faculty of Science office.  All Iraq News notes that another Mosul bomb - a roadside one this time -- targeted a military patrol and left seven people (five were soldiers) injured -- this one the US press did cover.
 
And then they lost interest.  Even though the violence continued.  Alsumaria notes a Nineveh Province barber shop was attacked leaving 3 police officers dead and two civilians injured, an armed clash at a Nineveh Province checkpoint that left 1 police officer dead, and 1 person died and twelve were left injured via stoning at a residential project to the north of Najaf.
 
So much of the violence is not reported. For example, today Lauren Williams (Daily Star) reports a rape that took place last month which led to a father killing his 14-year-old son -- neither the rape nor the murder ("execution") of the 14-year-old garnered attention from the press in October:
 
When a young boy was raped by a member of rival tribe last month in the city of Ramadi, in Iraq's vast Sunni heartland of Anbar province, tribal authorities were called on to settle the situation.
Fourteen regional tribal sheikhs convened an emergency judicial session and delivered a swift, unanimous verdict.
The perpetrator was sentenced to immediate execution at the hands of his father, to avert any further retributive violence.

 
 

 
 
 
Amnesty International has condemned a wave of bomb attacks across Iraq that has reportedly killed at least 14 people on the eve of the Islamic New Year.
The deadliest attack took place in the northern city of Kirkuk, where, according to media reports, four bombs planted in parked cars went off simultaneously, killing at least nine people and wounding scores more.
Meanwhile in the mainly Shi'a southern city of Hilla, a car bomb reportedly exploded near a school and a crowded market, leaving at least four people dead, among them schoolchildren.
Explosions were also reported in the capital, Baghdad, and in the town of Balad Ruz, in the province of Diyala. The attacks appear to have targeted both Iraqi civilians and members of the security forces.
Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said:
"Deliberate attacks on civilians can never be justified.
Such attacks show utter contempt for humanity and must be roundly condemned.
"We urge the Iraqi authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation.
"Those suspected of being behind the attacks must be brought to justice in proceedings that meet international standards of fairness, and without the imposition of the death penalty."
 
 
 
Sunday, Michael R. Gordon reported on Ali Musa Daqduq who is said to be responsible for the death of 5 Americans and how he might be set free by Iraq.   Today Dar Addustour reports Ali Musa Daqduq has already been released and left for Iran.  A release that will obviously bother at least one US widow.  How do we know that?  From the May 18th snapshot:
 
Dropping back to earlier violence,  Christine Show (Daily Mail) reports, "The wife of a U.S. Army captain who was killed while deployed in Iraq is stunned that the person named responsible for his death will be freed.  Charlotte Freeman of Temecula, California expressed her dismay when she learned on Wednesday night that Ali Mussa Daqduq was cleared of all charges in the 2007 attack that killed Brian Freeman, 31, and four other U.S. soldiers."
On May 7th, Suadad-al Salhy, Patrick Markey and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) reported that Iraq's 'justice' system has cleared Ali Mussa Daqdug of all charges related to the "2007 kidnapping attack that killed five U.S. troops."  This was actually the second time that those said to be responsible for the five deaths.  Ali Mussa Daqduq is alleged to have been working with the League of Righteous (once known as "the Special Groups network") and the US had the leader and high ranking members in a US prison in Iraq.  Had.  Though right now there are many complaints regarding the decision to set Ali Mussa Daqdug free (he remains behind bars currently while the decision is appealed), the White House ordered the release of the leader of the League of Righteous, his brother and other high ranking LoR members.  That's in the summer of 2009.  Barack Obama is president.


Why did they do it?  The White House set them free in order to help England with their outstanding issues.  The White House made the call that 5 British citizens were more important than 5 US ones and they entered into negotiations with the League of Righteous.  All but one of the five Brits were already dead.   One of the dead wouldn't be released until a few months ago.  The League of Righteous would announce Barack went back on his promises to them so they weren't releasing all five.  After the bulk of US troops left Iraq in December 2011, the League of Righteous finally released the fifth corpse.
 
Those late to the story, refer to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:


This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."


Having made the decision to release those five in 2009, the Obama administration had no qualms about handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqi legal system despite the fact that it was considered a good guess that he'd walk. December 16, 2011, Liz Sly and Peter Finn (Washington Post) reported on the US handing Ali Musa Daqduq over to the Iraqis:


He was transferred to Iraqi custody after the Obama administration "sought and received assurances that he will be tried for his crimes," according to Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the National Security Council in Washington.


Kitabat reported  in May that Nouri caved to pressure from Tehran and that's why he was released.   It was also noted that a number of US Senators were asking the White House not to turn Daqduq over to Iraq but to move him to Guantanamo or another facility. 
May 18th,  Mike Jaccarino (Fox News -- link is text and video) quotes Charlotte Freeman stating, "It was like a pit (opening) inside of me. I briefly read it and couldn't read on.  I couldn't go there.  It wasn't like he was dying again.  It was more shock that these people get away with what they do.  There's no justice. It's amazing and shocking to me that someone who did what he did could go free."
 
Sunday, Gordon reported that the White House were informed Iraq was not going to continue to hold him and that US Ambassador to Iraq Robert S. Beecroft had been told to meet with Nouri about keeping Ali Musa Daqduq in prison.  Gordon observed:
 
The case is politically delicate for the White House not just because of the allegations against Mr. Daqduq but also because of the timing.  Some Iraqi officials have previously suggested that they would seek to mollify the Obama administration by putting off releasing Mr. Daqduq until the presidential campaign was over, but American officials repeatedly insisted that they did not want him released at all.
 
We've noted before, when he was first cleared, that asking Iraq to hold someone who had been cleared of charges was ridiculous.  What message does that send?  "Justice matters except when the US government doesn't like the decision."?  If the Iraqi courts are going to be told that their decisions are subject to the approval of another government, then they're never going to progress.   As noted in the July 12th snapshot:
 
I am very sorry that the families did not see justice.  I'm very sorry that Barack Obama traded others involved in the killings (he let go the head of the League of Righteous and others who were involved in this attack -- let them go in the summer of 2009 from US prisons and did so -- as they would reveal themselves -- because he wanted the 5 kidnapped British citizens released by the League).  I'm sorry that American lives mattered so little to Barack Obama.  I'm sorry that he wants to grandstand on the backs of US service members after releasing the ringleaders involved in killing 5 Americans.
But at this point, it's too late.  The legal system is followed or it isn't.  The US is interfering with Iraqi law and the legal system.  Not to try to save someone from being executed but to try to prevent someone from being released.  If Barack didn't want him released, he should have kept in US custody.  Barack chose not to and the man was turned over to Iraq.  He's now stood in trial twice.  He was found not guilty.  By the rule of the law, he's free.  I don't like it, I don't think it's fair, but it's the law.
 
 
There are many things the US could have done including bringing Daqduq to the US for a trial instead of handing him over.   That was also when Antony Blinken (National Security Adviser to US Vice President Joe Biden) stated that they were asking Iraq to extradite Daqduq to the US.  There was a real request?  And Iraq turned it down?  We're supposed to believe that?
 
 
And Barack?  First, he traded custody of killers -- plural -- of 5 Americans in order to help the British.  Then he failed to take the necessary steps to punish the alleged ring leader.  After, when it was getting press attention, he had Blinken lie.  And, on top of that, grasp what Michael Gordon was reporting.  There was a deal in place with Nouri that said Daqduq would not be released until after the US presidential election.
 
Do you grasp that?  Do you grasp how many lies the American people have been told and how much has been hidden?   Douglas Murray (UK's Spectator) observes:
 
What a lot of things President Obama seems to have been holding back until after his re-election. Each day brings something new.
There has been the news of an attack by Iran on a US drone in the Persian Gulf. Then there is the Petraeus affair – known about for months, but only leading to the CIA chief's resignation immediately after Obama's re-election. The Benghazi hearings are yet to come.
And now another surprise. It transpires that the Iraqi government, a body which is only in power because of the sacrifice of thousands of American, British and other allied troops, is releasing from custody a senior Hezbollah terrorist who was in detention for killing American troops.
 
 
Alsumaria reports that US President Barack Obama has confirmed his support for Iraq via a phone call between Nouri and US Vice President Joe Biden who stayed he will visit soon and that a defense delegation will also be visiting Iraq.   However, Neil Munro (Daily Caller) reports that Nouri spoke with Biden when Nouri called because Barack "spurned a congratulatory phone call" from Nouri.  The White House issued the following on the phone call yesterday:
 
For Immediate Release
November 13, 2012
 
Readout of Vice President Biden's Call with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
Vice President Biden today spoke by phone with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. Prime Minister Maliki congratulated the Vice President and President Obama on their re-election. The two leaders agreed that the coming years presented an opportunity for both nations to enhance our strategic partnership across a range of issues of mutual concern and pledged to continue the close consultations conducted in recent months by a series of senior U.S. visitors to Baghdad.  Both leaders also reiterated the importance of implementing the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement, in all its dimensions, and noted that upcoming meetings would be dedicated to that objective.
 
Today Barack held one of those rare press conferences.  No one asked him about the release of Daqduq.  Apparently 5 dead Americans don't mean one damn thing to the White House press corps.  Excerpts of  topics we have been following:
 
Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Can you assure the American people that there have been no breaches of national security or classified information in the scandal involving Generals Petraeus and Allen?  And do you think that you as Commander-in-Chief and the American people should have been told that the CIA chief was under investigation before the election?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I have no evidence at this point from what I've seen that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security. 
Obviously there's an ongoing investigation.  I don't want to comment on the specifics of the investigation.  The FBI has its own protocols in terms of how they proceed, and I'm going to let Director Mueller and others examine those protocols and make some statements to the public generally.
I do want to emphasize what I've said before:  General Petraeus had an extraordinary career.  He served this country with great distinction in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and as head of the CIA.  By his own assessment, he did not meet the standards that he felt were necessary as the Director of CIA with respect to this personal matter that he is now dealing with, with his family and with his wife.  And it's on that basis that he tendered his resignation, and it's on that basis that I accepted it.
But I want to emphasize that from my perspective at least, he has provided this country an extraordinary service.  We are safer because of the work that Dave Petraeus has done.  And my main hope right now is, is that he and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career.
 
Q    What about voters?  Did they deserve to know?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Again, I think you're going to have to talk to the FBI in terms of what their general protocols are when it comes to what started off as a potential criminal investigation. One of the challenges here is, is that we're not supposed to meddle in criminal investigations, and that's been our practice. And I think that there are certain procedures that both the FBI follow, or DOJ follow, when they're involved in these investigations.  That's traditionally been how we view things, in part because people are innocent until proven guilty, and we want to make sure that we don't pre-judge these kinds of situations.  And so my expectation is, is that they followed protocols that they already established.
 
[. . .]
 
Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination.  As Senator Graham said, he simply doesn't trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi.  I'd like your reaction to that.  And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?
 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations that I'll put forward to fill out my Cabinet for the second term.  Those are things that are still being discussed.
But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work.  She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. 
As I've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.  If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me.  And I'm happy to have that discussion with them.  But for them to go after the U.N. Ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. 
And we're after an election now.  I think it is important for us to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, and I'm happy to cooperate in any ways that Congress wants.  We have provided every bit of information that we have, and we will continue to provide information.  And we've got a full-blown investigation, and all that information will be disgorged to Congress. 
And I don't think there's any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that's a problem.  And we've got to get to the bottom of it, and there needs to be accountability.  We've got to bring those who carried it out to justice.  They won't get any debate from me on that.
But when they go after the U.N. Ambassador, apparently because they think she's an easy target, then they've got a problem with me.  And should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her.  That's not a determination that I've made yet.
Ed Henry.
 
Q    I want to take Chuck's lead and just ask a very small follow-up, which is whether you feel you have a mandate not just on taxes but on a range of issues because of your decisive victory? 
But I want to stay on Benghazi, based on what Jon asked because you said, if they want to come after me, come after me.  I wanted to ask about the families of these four Americans who were killed.  Sean Smith's father, Ray, said he believes his son basically called 911 for help and they didn't get it.  And I know you've said you grieve for these four Americans, that it's being investigated, but the families have been waiting for more than two months.  So I would like to -- for you to address the families, if you can.  On 9/11, as Commander-in-Chief, did you issue any orders to try to protect their lives?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Ed, I'll address the families not through the press.  I'll address the families directly, as I already have.  And we will provide all the information that is available about what happened on that day.  That's what the investigation is for. 
But as I've said repeatedly, if people don't think that we did everything we can to make sure that we saved the lives of folks who I sent there and who were carrying out missions on behalf of the United States, then you don't know how our Defense Department thinks or our State Department thinks or our CIA thinks.  Their number-one priority is obviously to protect American lives.  That's what our job is.  Now --
 
Q    (Inaudible.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Ed, I will put forward every bit of information that we have.  I can tell you that immediately upon finding out that our folks were in danger, that my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe.  And that's the same order that I would give any time that I see Americans are in danger, whether they're civilian or military, because that's our number-one priority.
 
First off, Sean Smith's mother, Pat Smith, has been very clear on CNN speaking with Anderson Cooper that the White House has ignored her after one brief meeting.  Tyrone Woods' father, Charles Woods, feels lied to.  There were four Americans that died.  The media ran with the parents of Chris Smith because (a) they're elitists (he was the Ambassador) and (b) that's who the White House tried to make the spokespeople because they'd sing the tune the White House wanted.  But Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith also died in that attack.  It was very telling that for all the talk of 'service' the press likes to pretend they give a damn about, they were happy to ignore Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who are both veterans of the military.  Very telling.
 
Second, Susan Rice was selected to lie and that is what she did.   She is now a liar.  Here's the liar from September 16th,  Susan Rice on CBS Face The Nation:
 
BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?
 
SUSAN RICE (Ambassador to the United Nations): Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the President, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and--
 
BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): But they are not there.
 
SUSAN RICE: They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of-- of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy--
 
 
BOB SCHIEFFER: Mm-Hm.
 
SUSAN RICE: --sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that-- in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.
 
BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
 
SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
 
 
Beside the lies she was spreading, grasp that five days after the attack, she's telling America -- with no apology or remorse -- that the FBI and US government have no one on the ground in Libya for the investigation.  Five days after.  That's outrageous.  And "telling"?  Only after Bob Schieffer pressed her.   Let's also remember what she said on NBC's Meet The Press six days after the attack, "This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world  Obviously, our view is that there is absolutely no excuse for violence and that -- what has happened is condemnable, but this is a -- spontenaeous reaction to a video, and it's not dissimilar but, perhaps, on a slightly larger scale than what we have seen in the past with The Satanic Verses with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.  Now, the United States has made very clear and the president has been very plain that our top priority is the protection of American personnel in our facilities and bringing to justice those who attacked our facilitiy in Benghazi."
 
 
 
But it had nothing to do with the video.  Susan Rice is a liar.  And you damn well better believe there will be pushback if she's nominated. I have a home in the DC area but I'm not part of the DC bubble and, outside of the bubble, if you speak to veterans, students and others groups -- as we do week -- you'll find out real quick that Susan Rice is a lightening rod. 
 
Senator John McCain's office issued this statement from McCain today in response to the press conference:
 
I have always said that the buck stops with the President of the United States, particularly for his contradictory statements in the Rose Garden, on '60 Minutes' and in later venues alleging that the obvious terrorist attack in Benghazi was triggered by a spontaneous demonstration and a hateful video, or that we didn't know the cause. Those statements clearly did not comport with the facts on the ground. We owe the American people and the families of the murdered Americans a full and complete explanation, which for two months the President has failed to deliver. Given all these facts, a Select Committee must be appointed in order to obtain a full and complete accounting which would be credible with the American people.
 
McCain and others (including Senator Susan Collins -- who is described as a moderate Republican) are featured in Kelly O'Donnell's report for NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.  Already the Boston Herald's editorial board has come out against her:
 
And speaking of Benghazi, it's our view that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice either intentionally misled Americans when she went on five national talk shows five days after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate there -- or she was simply parroting the empty talking points that the White House had stuffed into her hands prior to her appearances.
We're not sure which is worse, but we're quite sure that stain on Rice's otherwise impressive resume disqualifies her from serving as this nation's top diplomat.
 
I've never bought they myth that Barack's a genius.  But is he that stupid?  They've run off anyone who could help the White House -- Valerie Jarrett's run off everyone -- but no one can explain to the apethetic Barack that any goodwill he thinks the election brought him will vanish if he pursues the Susan Rice nomination? 
 
 
We included Barack's remarks about Petraeus.  Then-General David Petraeus became a high profile figure when he was the top US commander in Iraq from February 2007 to September 2008.  More recently, he's known for other things.  The scandal has forced him to resign as CIA Director.  It also means that an honor he was to receive has been put on hold.  The Royal United Services Institute in London explains:
 
 
General Petraeus was due to visit London this month to receive the Chesney Gold Medal award from the Royal United Services Institute for his role in devising and implementing the US counter-insurgency doctrine that was used to turn around the war in Iraq and reshape the campaign in Afghanistan. In light of recent developments, the presentation on 26 November of the RUSI Chesney Gold Medal for General Petraeus' distinguished lifetime service and contribution to international defence and security will now be postponed.
 
The presentation of the award to General Petraeus will take place on a date to be determined, in early 2013, at the Tower of London.
 
For further information on the rescheduled dinner please look for updates on www.rusi.org/events
 
For more on the Chesney Gold Medal please visit www.rusi.org/chesneygoldmedal
 
As Ephraim Hardcastle (Daily Mail) notes, Petraeus has become a joke internationally. Jill Kelley's the whatever who ran to the FBI (instead of the police) and brought Petraeus down by sicking the FBI on Petraeus' mistress.  As Elaine noted last night, Kelley's not a socialite.  She's considered many things (none of them kind) but she's not a socialite.   On Benghazi, Ruth pointed out last night,  "One question that should be answered is if the Pentagon knew about the attack within 50 minutes of it starting, why did the White House and President Barack Obama lie for weeks that it was a protest caused by a YouTube video?"
 
 
 
 
 
cnn
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)