Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Song you have to hear


Okay, here's a video of a cover song that you have to stream.


7 hours ago
Radiohead - Nobody Does It Better (Carly Simon - James Bond's The Spy who loved me main theme cover)


    • Radiohead doing "Nobody Does It Better" is a must stream.

    Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



    Wednesday, February 11, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama wants more war and longer war and wider war, Foreign Policy In Focus and Ron Paul are two who notice, the US Secretary of Veterans Affairs insults a veteran publicly and questions the value of the veteran's service, US Senator Patty Murray continues fighting for veterans including those wounded while serving who need assistance with starting families, and much more.



    Let's start with some basics the White House advanced today:
    1. What is an AUMF?
    An AUMF, or authorization of use of military force, is a law passed by Congress that authorizes the President to use U.S. military force.  
    2. What is the President’s proposal for an AUMF against ISIL? 
    The President is submitting a draft of an AUMF to Congress to authorize the continued limited use of military force to degrade and defeat ISIL. Key elements of the President’s proposal include:
    • A three-year limit on the AUMF so that the next President, Congress, and the American people can assess the progress we have made against ISIL and review these authorities again
    • A repeal of the 2002 Iraq AUMF which authorized the 2003 Iraq invasion under President George W. Bush
    It’s important to note that the AUMF the President is proposing would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those our nation conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. His proposal does seek the flexibility to conduct ground operations in other, more limited circumstances, including:

    • Rescue operations involving U.S. or coalition personnel
    • Special Operations missions against ISIL leadership
    • Intelligence collection and assistance to partner forces


    A three year limit?  That would be February 2018.  Barack wouldn't be in the White House.

    Probably more importantly, when does a so-called 'limit' mean forces leave a country?


    The Status of Forces Agreement that Bully Boy Bush's administration negotiated with then-Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki had a limit.  At the end of three years, the contract expired unless something new came along to replace it.

    Nothing new came along.

    So US forces all left Iraq and are out of the country now.


    Oh, wait, that's not what happened.  Special-Ops were among the troops who remained in Iraq after the December 2011 drawdown and over 15,000 troops in Iraq were instead sent into Kuwait in case they needed to go back in.

    And there's been no authorization for the special-ops brigade Barack sent in during the fall of 2012 or all the US troops he's sent in since June.


    So let's just all be honest, the 'three year limit' is meaningless.  In three years, those wanting the US forces to remain in will insist that deaths were in vain otherwise and possibly that those calling for troops out of Iraq are actually unAmerican, unpatriotic and shouldn't voice opinions while troops are in harms way.

    The three year limit is not to protect Iraq.

    It is not to protect US forces.

    It exists for one reason only: So Barack can push the blame off on someone else since the decision three years from now will be pushed off on others.

    And for those dwindling few who remain members of The Cult of St. Barack, it's not just me saying this, it's also your sainted leader who declared today, "It is not a timetable.  It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period.  What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next President’s term."


    Get it?

    He should be ashamed of himself and someone should go back and count how many times he publicly used the term "kick the can" in 2007 and 2008 as he insulted those who refused to confront a problem but instead "kicked the can" down the road and left it for someone to solve later on.

    He spoke on the topic this afternoon.  Here are his remarks in full:
      THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Today, as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries -- our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.  
    More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists.  We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines, making it harder for them to move.  We’re destroying their fighting positions, their tanks, their vehicles, their barracks, their training camps, and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations.  We’re taking out their commanders, their fighters, and their leaders.  
    In Iraq, local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back.  In Syria, ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani, losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians.  And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause.    
    Now, make no mistake -- this is a difficult mission, and it will remain difficult for some time.  It’s going to take time to dislodge these terrorists, especially from urban areas.  But our coalition is on the offensive, ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose.  Its barbaric murders of so many people, including American hostages, are a desperate and revolting attempt to strike fear in the hearts of people it can never possibly win over by its ideas or its ideology -- because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction.  And with vile groups like this, there is only one option:  With our allies and partners, we are going to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. 
    And when I announced our strategy against ISIL in September, I said that we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together.  Today, my administration submitted a draft resolution to Congress to authorize the use of force against ISIL.  I want to be very clear about what it does and what it does not do.
    This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL.  It supports the comprehensive strategy that we have been pursuing with our allies and partners:  A systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.  Support and training for local forces on the ground, including the moderate Syrian opposition.  Preventing ISIL attacks, in the region and beyond, including by foreign terrorist fighters who try to threaten our countries.  Regional and international support for an inclusive Iraqi government that unites the Iraqi people and strengthens Iraqi forces against ISIL.  Humanitarian assistance for the innocent civilians of Iraq and Syria, who are suffering so terribly under ISIL’s reign of horror.  
    I want to thank Vice President Biden, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and General Marty Dempsey for their leadership in advancing our strategy.  Even as we meet this challenge in Iraq and Syria, we all agree that one of our weapons against terrorists like ISIL -- a critical part of our strategy -- is the values we live here at home.  One of the best antidotes to the hateful ideologies that try to recruit and radicalize people to violent extremism is our own example as diverse and tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people, including people of all faiths.
    The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria.  It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq.  The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases -- and, yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment.  But they do not have a combat mission.  They are focused on training Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces.  
    As I’ve said before, I’m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East.  That’s not in our national security interest and it’s not necessary for us to defeat ISIL.  Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL -- and that’s what they’re doing.    
    At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances.  For example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of ISIL leaders, and our partners didn’t have the capacity to get them, I would be prepared to order our Special Forces to take action, because I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven.  So we need flexibility, but we also have to be careful and deliberate.  And there is no heavier decision than asking our men and women in uniform to risk their lives on our behalf.  As Commander in Chief, I will only send our troops into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary for our national security.  
    Finally, this resolution repeals the 2002 authorization of force for the invasion of Iraq and limits this new authorization to three years.  I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war, or by remaining on a perpetual war footing.  As a nation, we need to ask the difficult and necessary questions about when, why and how we use military force.  After all, it is our troops who bear the costs of our decisions, and we owe them a clear strategy and the support they need to get the job done.  So this resolution will give our armed forces and our coalition the continuity we need for the next three years.  
    It is not a timetable.  It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period.  What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next President’s term.  It’s conceivable that the mission is completed earlier.  It’s conceivable that after deliberation, debate and evaluation, that there are additional tasks to be carried out in this area.  And the people’s representatives, with a new President, should be able to have that discussion.
    In closing, I want to say that in crafting this resolution we have consulted with, and listened to, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  We have made a sincere effort to address difficult issues that we’ve discussed together.  In the days and weeks ahead, we’ll continue to work closely with leaders and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.  I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands.  I’m optimistic that it can win strong bipartisan support, and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission.   
    Today, our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL, and we salute them for their courageous service.  We pray for their safety.  We stand with their families who miss them and who are sacrificing here at home.  But know this:  Our coalition is strong, our cause is just, and our mission will succeed.  And long after the terrorists we face today are destroyed and forgotten, America will continue to stand free and tall and strong.  
    May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much, everybody.




    That's what he's saying today.  As he prepares to send US forces into combat.

    And what did he say in June?

    June 13, 2014, he stated:


    We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq, but I have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces, and I’ll be reviewing those options in the days ahead.


    Today?  He stated:

    The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria.  It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq.  The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases -- and, yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment.  But they do not have a combat mission.  They are focused on training Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces.  


    It doesn't call for it because Democrats in Congress threatened to stage a mutiny.


    Barack had already sent US Secretary of State John Kerry to Congress, specifically the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which Kerry used to Chair) December 9th to argue that Congress must include granting Barack the right to put US troops in on the ground combat in Iraq or Congress would "bind the hands of the commander in chief [and] our commanders in the field."


    Reality, it's not needed.

    It's never been needed.

    If Congress gives Barack -- or any president -- an authorization for war, that's it.

    As commander-in-chief of the US military, he then executes the war.

    If he wants troops in combat, he gets them with no need of Congressional approval.

    Barack knows that.

    John Kerry knows that.

    What was the December 9th plea about?

    Trying to spread the blame around.

    Trying to say Congress wanted it.

    Barack takes neither responsibility nor accountability.

    If you haven't noticed that by now, you're either in a coma or in The Cult of St. Barack.


    Someone who is paying attention is Peter Certo (Foreign Policy In Focus) whose breakdown of the request includes:



    As an ardent supporter of “hamstringing the commander in chief” in this particular case, let me count the ways that my concerns have not been eased by this resolution.
    1. Its vague wording will almost certainly be abused.
    For one thing, the administration has couched its limitations on the use of ground forces in some curiously porous language.
    How long is an “enduring” engagement, for example? A week? A year? The full three years of the authorization and beyond?
    And what’s an “offensive” operation if not one that involves invading another country? The resolution’s introduction claims outright that U.S. strikes against ISIS are justified by America’s “inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.” If Obama considers the whole war “inherently defensive,” does the proscription against “offensive” operations even apply?
    And what counts as “combat”? In his last State of the Union address, Obama proclaimed that “our combat mission in Afghanistan is over.” But only two months earlier, he’d quietly extended the mission of nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in the country for at least another year. So the word seems meaningless.
    In short, the limitation on ground troops is no limitation at all. “What they have in mind,” said California Democrat Adam Schiff, “is still fairly broad and subject to such wide interpretation that it could be used in almost any context.”
    Any context? Yep. Because it’s not just the ISIS heartland we’re talking about.
    2. It would authorize war anywhere on the planet.
    For the past six months, we’ve been dropping bombs on Iraq and Syria. But the draft resolution doesn’t limit the authorization to those two countries. Indeed, the text makes no mention of any geographic limitations at all.
    That could set the United States up for war in a huge swath of the Middle East. Immediate targets would likely include Jordan or Lebanon, where ISIS forces have hovered on the periphery and occasionally launched cross-border incursions. But it could also rope in countries like Libya or Yemen, where ISIS knockoff groups that don’t necessarily have any connection to the fighters in Iraq and Syria have set up shop.
    This is no theoretical concern. The Obama administration has used Congress’ post-9/11 war authorization — which specifically targeted only the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and their patrons and supporters — to target a broad array of nominally “associated forces” in a stretch of the globe reaching from Somalia to the Philippines.
    In fact, the administration has used the very same 2001 resolution to justify its current intervention in Iraq and Syria — the very war this new resolution is supposed to be authorizing.
    How does the new resolution handle that? 




    Will others note the problems or are we on the left going to yet again fall into a collective silence to protect Sainted Barack?


    Well one just has.  Antiwar.com just posted former US House Rep Ron Paul's column which includes:



     The new authorization explicitly does not impose geographic limits on the use of troops anywhere in the world and expands the definition of ISIS to that of all “associated forces.” A grant of this authority will do nothing to limit our dangerous involvement in these constant Middle East wars.

    The war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. It is not difficult to motivate resistance against an organization like ISIS that engages in such evil displays of horrific violence.

    We have been fighting in the Middle East for 25 years. There have been no victories and no “mission accomplished.” Many needless deaths and dollars have been spent and yet we never reassess our policies of foreign interventionism. One would think after the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in 2008, as a reaction to the disastrous foreign policy of George W. Bush, that the American people would be more cautious in granting support to expanding our military presence in that region.

    One thing that's been repeatedly noticed in the last years is that the administration has serious issues with accountability and, when questioned by Congress, gets nasty and rude.


    Eric Holder's lost in front of Congress repeatedly, John Kerry's been embarrassing and of course Hillary started yelling and screaming like a beast culminating in her infamous January 23, 2013 snarl of "What difference at this point does it make!"  [See the  January 23, 2013 snapshot., the January 24, 2013 snapshot,  Wally's "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally),"   Ava's  "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth's "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat's  "Can she not answer even one damn question?"]

    But today's House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing found a witness who may have topped all of that combined.
     
    This morning, the full Committee explored the VA's budget request for FY2016.  Among those offering testimony was VA Secretary Robert McDonald who lost it in an exchange with US House Rep Mike Coffman and snarled, "I've run a large company, sir.  What have you done?"

    Coffman did a slow burn.

    McDonald may have felt he'd won but he didn't win.

    Coffman's a former Marine.  

    Coffman served in the Gulf War and the Iraq War. 

    The fact that McDonald is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs makes the rudeness all the more appalling.


    Though he refused to lower himself to McDonald's level in the hearing, Coffman did post a statement on his Facebook page:


    7 hrs ·
    Let me start by telling you something I haven't done. I have never run a federal agency that tolerates corruption the way the VA has. I've never built a hospital that's years behind schedule and hundreds of millions over budget. And I've never been a shill for inept bureaucrats who allowed American heroes to die on a medical waiting list while waiting for medical service. This is the most arrogant administration in our lifetime. Most would apologize for a scandal committed against our military service men and women. This administration is seemingly incapable of feeling shame.
    VA Secretary Asks Only Member of Congress to Serve in Both Iraq Wars, ‘What Have You Done?’
    Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald lost his cool in a House hearing Wednesday after Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) asked him questions about huge...
    www.theblaze.com
    · Comment ·  

    I do not think it plays well for the administration -- for any administration -- when their officials act arrogant and rude before Congress.

    The Congress is supposed to be the voice of the people.  So when you show them disrespect, by proxy, you're showing disrespect to the citizens across the country.

    I'm referring to government officials here -- federal government.  Private citizens, state employees, what have you can act however they want before the US Congress.

    But federal officials whose salaries are paid by US taxpayers need to conduct themselves appropriately.


    Robert McDonald did not do that today.


    Worse, he attacked a veteran.

    I'm sure he had no idea.

    I don't believe any VA Secretary would ever be so stupid as to attack a veteran and question their service.

    McDonald needs to publicly apologize or he needs to grasp that he will face the wrath of veterans who will not think it appropriate that the Secretary of the VA has questioned -- unknowingly, I believe -- the worth of military service.


    On the topic of veterans, Senator Patty Murray continues to fight for an equal playing field for the veterans of today's wars.  Her office issued the following today:


    		 






    Lastly, violence continued in Iraq today, of course.  Iraqi Spring MC reports 3 young men have been kidnapped in Baquba with one being Omar Yassin, nephew of MP Raad al-Aldhlki.  Alsumaria reports 2 suicide car bombers attacked an Iraqi military base outside Tikrit killing 2 security forces and injuring thirteen more, a suicide bomber south of Tikrit took his own life and the life of 1 Iraqi police member leaving five more injured, a sticky bombing south of Baghdad left one person injured, a rocket attack north of Baghdad left 1 person dead and four more injured, a Muthanna suicide car bomber left thirty people dead or wounded, a northwest Baghdad mortar attack left seven people injured, and, dropping back to last night, the bombing of 2 homes in Yahtrib left five people injures.











    Posted by at

    Poor stupid Mia Farrow

    Failed actress Mia Farrow has to keep her celebrity churning.

    So she's talking about "unseemly" on Brian Williams.




     ·  5 hours ago


    Unseemly & chilling how some of these TV journalists are reveling in every second of their Brian Williams take downs
    90 retweets 140 favorites


    Unseemly?

    You tell Vanity Fair your son by Woody Allen might be Frank Sinatra's because you continued sleeping with him?

    You do that while his widow is still alive.

    You do that to get some headlines.

    And then you want to talk about unseemly?

    Mia clearly is desperate for attention and it's time for the Girls gang to circle the wagons yet again.

    Poor Mia, a great grandma to Lena Dunham's crowd.

    Poor pathetic Mia.

    By the way, you think anyone's ever going to ask Mia to tell the truth about her 'autistic' child?

    She's got her own Brian Williams' lies out there.


    Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


    Tuesday, February 10, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Brian Williams gets handed a six month sentence, unlike the State Dept we actually pay attention to the speech given by  Rania Al Abdullah (Queen of Jordan), and much more.




    This evening Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America issued a press release which opens:


     This evening House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signed the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act certifying its passage during an enrollment ceremony. The Speaker was joined by Susan and Richard Selke, parents of Clay Hunt, Paul Rieckhoff, IAVA CEO and Founder, and IAVA member veterans who were present for the ceremony. The Clay Hunt SAV Act, which passed the House in January and the Senate unanimously last week, will combat veteran suicide and improve access to mental health care. The legislation is named after Marine sniper Clay Hunt from Texas, who died by suicide in 2011. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) commends Congress for standing with our veterans and passing the bipartisan bill.
    The bill now goes to President Obama, who will sign it into law on Thursday, February 12, 2015. Click here to visit a timeline of IAVA’s work on combating suicide.
    “We are so thankful for Speaker Boehner holding this ceremony today, and for the members of Congress who helped pass this bill so quickly at the beginning of this session. Last year, Richard and I began this journey to make sure not another veteran faces the obstacles Clay did when accessing mental health care,” said Susan Selke, mother of Clay Hunt. “While this bill is not a remedy to a complicated issue, it does help address gaps in accessing mental health care. Had legislation like this existed years ago I believe Clay would be here with us today. We are fortunate to see our country is now one step closer to reversing this terrible suicide rate.”

    “This is a historic day for IAVA members and veterans nationwide. After a year of hard work urging Washington to focus its attention on veteran suicide, we have finally come full circle,” said IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff. “We thank Speaker Boehner and Congress for passing this bill and making sure our veterans get the mental health care they so desperately need. We also thank Senators McCain and Blumenthal for leading on this issue and reintroducing the bill as their first agenda items this year. IAVA also applauds Rep. Tim Walz for introducing the House version and Chairman Jeff Miller for his stewardship. Their leadership and commitment to veterans have been vital in this fight. Next, our veterans look forward to seeing the bill signed into law at Thursday’s signing ceremony at the White House. The brave men and women who served our country will now begin to receive the access to the quality mental health care they were promised and rightfully deserve.”


    We'll post the release in full at the end of this snapshot.  But we'll open with the above because it's big news and IAVA and Clay Hunt's family worked very hard to make a needed possibility into a reality that will benefit many, many veterans.


     Now we're going to move over to the issue of celebrity and liar Brian Williams.  He'd be a paragraph were it not for all the drive-by e-mails.  I don't buckle under pressure.  No, I push back.  So all the little whiners -- most of you citing your love of MSNBC and Comedy Central -- grasp that Gina long ago defined this site as a private conversation in public sphere.

    You're free to listen in but you don't dictate the topics and you don't control the conversation.

    Martha and Shirley informed over 60 '1st time' e-mailers wanted me to know that my commentary on Jon Stewart in the snapshot yesterday and this morning was wrong.

    'Jon is not too old.'  And he has not aged out of Comedy Central's demographic, they maintain.

    He will host, 12 insisted, The Daily Show for many years to come.  Ten years was the most common assertion.

    I guess I was wrong.

    I guess my friends -- people actually in charge of what airs and what doesn't -- told me wrong.


    Thank you, kind strangers, for correcting me but . . .


    . . . What's that?

    Jon Stewart's stepping down from The Daily Show?.

    Yeah.

    Announced this afternoon.



    I don't know what they told you
    Don't even care what about
    All I know is I'm clean as a whistle, baby
    I didn't let the cat out
    So don't look at me sideways
    Don't even look me straight on
    And don't look at my hands in my pockets
    I ain't done anything wrong
    -- "Never Said Nothing," written by Liz Phair, first appears on her Exile In Guyville.


    Some of us are in the room and others just have faces pressed against the glass.


    Comedy Central's not the only one with an announcement.

    NBC News had one as well.

    Brian Steinberg (Variety) reports:


     Hoping to tamp down a controversy growing around one of its best-known on-air personalities, NBC News on Tuesday suspended Brian Williams, the most-watched evening-news anchor in the U.S., from his duties as chief anchor and managing editor of “NBC Nightly News” for six months without pay in the wake of a scandal over misleading statements he made about his time covering the Iraq War in 2003.
    The furor over Williams’ embellishments have engulfed NBC News since early last week, when his account of facing enemy fire while riding in a helicopter in 2003 was challenged by Iraq veterans. Williams’ last broadcast took place on Friday. Lester Holt will continue as substitute anchor.


    Deborah Turness, President of NBC News, issued a memo to NBC News staff which NBC News has posted online:

    All,
    We have decided today to suspend Brian Williams as Managing Editor and Anchor of NBC Nightly News for six months. The suspension will be without pay and is effective immediately.  We let Brian know of our decision earlier today. Lester Holt will continue to substitute Anchor the NBC Nightly News.
    Our review, which is being led by Richard Esposito working closely with NBCUniversal General Counsel Kim Harris, is ongoing, but I think it is important to take you through our thought process in coming to this decision.
    While on Nightly News on Friday, January 30, 2015, Brian misrepresented events which occurred while he was covering the Iraq War in 2003. It then became clear that on other occasions Brian had done the same while telling that story in other venues. This was wrong and completely inappropriate for someone in Brian’s position.
    In addition, we have concerns about comments that occurred outside NBC News while Brian was talking about his experiences in the field.
    As Managing Editor and Anchor of Nightly News, Brian has a responsibility to be truthful and to uphold the high standards of the news division at all times.
    Steve Burke, Pat Fili and I came to this decision together. We felt it would have been wrong to disregard the good work Brian has done and the special relationship he has forged with our viewers over 22 years.  Millions of Americans have turned to him every day, and he has been an important and well-respected part of our organization.
    As I’m sure you understand, this was a very hard decision. Certainly there will be those who disagree.  But we believe this suspension is the appropriate and proportionate action.
    This has been a difficult time. But NBC News is bigger than this moment. You work so hard and dedicate yourselves each and every day to the important work of bringing trusted, credible news to our audience. Because of you, your loyalty, your dedication, NBC News is an organization we can – and should – all be proud of. We will get through this together.
    Steve Burke asked me to share the following message.
    “This has been a painful period for all concerned and we appreciate your patience while we gathered the available facts. By his actions, Brian has jeopardized the trust millions of Americans place in NBC News.  His actions are inexcusable and this suspension is severe and appropriate.  Brian’s life’s work is delivering the news. I know Brian loves his country, NBC News and his colleagues. He deserves a second chance and we are rooting for him.  Brian has shared his deep remorse with me and he is committed to winning back everyone’s trust.”

    Deborah


    Good for her.  That was a very hard call.  Most people didn't think it would be made.  She made the hard call and the needed call if news is going to be more important to NBC News than celebrity.

    Williams has six month suspension while the investigation continues.

    He can return.

    Of course, if he thinks the jokes are bad now, wait until the comics have a week's time to fill in the lead up to a return.

    Media critic David Zurawik (Baltimore Sun) offers his take which includes:

    Six months is a significant reprimand that says to Williams he has sinned in major ways, and that he has seriously harmed the company he says he loves. It also tells the audience NBC News is not trying to act like nothing bad happened. But it doesn't finish his career.
    It does, however, leave Williams in jeopardy. If he comes back in six months and the audience tunes him out because his credibility is shredded, he won't be anchor long.


    If he comes back.

    If.

    Because the problem isn't just the Iraq lie.


    Last week, we noted Jim Naureckas' piece at FAIR explaining Williams' problems when it came to Katrina.


    Now the right turned on Brian immediately.

    That's because he'd already betrayed them.  He was their boy.  The one who wrote mash notes to Tricky Dick when Richard Nixon was still president and hadn't been forced to resign as president to avoid criminal charges.

    And he was the one who counted Rush Limbaugh as his friend.


    So when suck-up Brian Williams became a 'Democrat' in their eyes (he's just a suck-up to whomever's in power), they were ready for his downfall.

    He's not winning them back.

    Some idiots on my side (the left) have whined and whimpered and been useless bitches for nearly a week now as they rushed to defend a liar.

    There was no reason to defend a liar caught lying.

    But because the right didn't like him, simple fools on my side decided that meant we must embrace him.



    There's a fire starting in my heart
    Reaching a fever pitch, it's bringing me out the dark
    Finally, I can see you crystal clear
    Go 'head and sell me out and I'll lay your s**t bare
    -- "Rolling In The Deep," written by Adele and Paul Epworth, first appears on Adele's 21.


    Today, the one laying Brian Williams' s**t bare is Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler who reminds how Brian went on MSNBC and CNBC to popularize the narrative that Al Gore was "unAmerican" for speaking out against a war on Iraq in the fall of 2002.

    Williams attacked the left for years.  Williams cheerleaded the start of the Iraq War.

    There's no reason to defend someone who has repeatedly lied about what he did in Iraq or in New Orleans or anywhere.  But as my side slowly awakens to the reality that Bri-Bri's no friend to the left, they're going to be less inclined to root for the liar.


    Ava and I have called out Williams' Iraq War cheerleading for some time.  Bob Somerby's called it out.  Greg Mitchell's called it out.  We'll again note Greg's Tweet from yesterday: 



  • 1 hour ago
    Jon Stewart defends Brian Williams by hitting media lies getting us into Iraq --which, BTW, Williams defended.
    4 retweets 7 favorites



    • Read his article about the snippy e-mail Brian Williams sent him.

    Now granted, we're real slow on my side.  Give us a corporatist channel selling war (Libya, for example) and whoring for the worst elements of the Democratic Party but make sure the (mainly Anglo White hosts) scream "racist!" repeatedly while constantly tell you how awful Republicans are and we're convinced that we've practically got Rosa Luxemburg and Fred Hampton beaming into our living rooms nightly on MSNBC.

    As the ratings demonstrate, most lefties who fell under the spell of MSNBC woke up some time ago and stopped watching.

    So we're slow, but we can learn.

    And six months from now, if Brian is allowed to return, he's going to find that even Libby Liberal -- posting at Corrente and elsewhere -- is going to have backed off her knee-jerk coverage of him.

    Because we are slow on the left but we do eventually learn.


    And we're learning, if we're paying attention, that Bully Boy Bush's attack on Syria was carried over by Barack Obama who now seems confused or conflicted.

    Which is with the President of the United States today?  Who knows?


    But ABC News Radio notes, "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad receives information from the United States regarding the fight against ISIS, he revealed in an interview with the BBC, but he denied that the countries are coordinating their efforts against the terrorist group, which has taken control of large swathes of Syria and Iraq."  That would be the enemy Barack wanted to go to war with but others prevailed.  Now sharing is taking place.  Tom Perry and Angus MacSwan (Reuters) add, "The Syrian government is waging its own, separate campaign against Islamic State, including air strikes in areas that have also been struck by the U.S.-led alliance. It has been widely assumed the Syrian and U.S. armies have conveyed information about the movements of jets using the same air space."


    A Jordanian pilot, Muath al-Kasabeh, was shot down by the Islamic State (some maintain the plane crashed all on its own -- magically) and he was then burned alive.  In response to the video, the kingdom of Jordan has become very vocal about events in the region and the danger of the Islamic State.  Today, Moufaq Khatib (NBC News) reports:

    Jordan has deployed "thousands" of troops at its border with Iraq as it ramps up a campaign against ISIS militants who set a pilot ablaze, two Jordanian government officials told NBC News on Tuesday.
    The troops were sent to prevent the infiltration of ISIS fighters into Jordan and as a show of force, according to the sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.
    Jordan's King Abdullah last week threatened to make ISIS pay for the death of Muath al-Kasasbeh's after video of the military pilot's murder emerged. He vowed to wage a "harsh" war against ISIS "because this terrorist organization is not only fighting us, but also fighting Islam and its pure values."         



    In yesterday's snapshot, we noted the Queen of Jordan, Rania Al Abdullah, had given a major address and we quoted from it.  Had the US State Dept been paying attention, they and Secretary of State John Kerry would have been highlighting the speech.

    But they're never paying attention to words or actions that can result in actual change.  They're too busy playing with bombs and plotting destruction.

    The Jordanian Kingdom has issued the following press release on the important speech:



    (Office of Her Majesty- Press Department- Abu Dhabi) Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah opened today the Abu Dhabi Media Summit 2014 which gathers more than 500 media industry leaders from around the globe. The theme of this year’s summit is ‘Driving and sustaining a future media in MENA and beyond’.
    In the opening session, which was attended by H.H. Sheikh Nahyan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister of Culture, Youth and Social Development, and H.H. Sheikh Hamdan bin Mubarak Al Nahyan, Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Queen Rania delivered a speech with a clear message that the Arab world needs to reclaim its narrative from extremist groups in the region. “A minority of irreligious extremists is using social media to rewrite our narrative… hijack our identity and rebrand us.”
    With images of violence and destruction from the Arab world projected on screen, Her Majesty insisted that these images do not represent the vast majority of Arabs.
    “These images don’t represent me anymore than they represent you. They’re alien and abhorrent to the vast majority of Arabs -- Muslims and Christians. And they should make every Arab across this region seethe. Because they’re an attack on our values as a people. And on our collective story.”
    However, the Queen noted that the moderate majority of Arabs are equally to blame. “They say, “a story is told as much by silence as by speech”. Well, our silence speaks volumes. We are complicit in their success.”
    But Her Majesty asserted that the fight against extremists goes well beyond that battleground and it is a fight between moderates and extremists all over the world.
    “It’s a fight for the future of Islam and the future of the Arab world. So, it’s a fight that moderates have to win,” adding that “Winning also depends on our ability to conquer the philosophical battleground as well. Because at the heart of this assault is an ideology.”
    Queen Rania questioned the increase in the number of followers and fans of radical groups in the region. She explained that these followers are “from classrooms in which they were never challenged to think for themselves, and where they learned an outdated curriculum. From societies in which a quarter of their peers is unemployed, where there’s inadequate social security to afford a life of dignity, and where opportunities to help to change the status quo are few and far between.”
    Her Majesty added that the only way we can save our youth from the sirens’ call of extremism is to provide them with a better alternative. “The satisfaction of a job, the relief of justice, the solidarity of equality, and the fulfilment of participation. We provide real opportunities for change and advancement.”
    Her Majesty presented the audience with the options facing the region today: “We either develop our region, or we let others dismantle it. Find solutions to the challenges, or watch the challenges avalanche. Harness the tools to drive the Arab world forward in the 21st century, or let others use those tools to drag us back to the dark ages.”
    Education reform topped Her Majesty’s to-do-list for the region: “Our strategy must be long-term. And that starts by investing in quality education for all... Education reform doesn’t come cheap. But the price of ignorance is far, far greater.”
    She gave the example of EDRAAK, an initiative that Her Majesty launched earlier this year to bring Massive Open Online Courses to the Arab world in Arabic. She also thanked His Highness General Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan for his support for the initiative and noted that online learning is the best opportunity to achieve quality and modern education, which the Arab World desperately needs.
    Commenting on quality education for all, Queen Rania asserted that it must include girls as well as boys. “Because educated girls strengthen their nations’ economies, they prioritize the health and education of their own children and they help to build stable societies more resilient to radicalization.” She said.
    Queen Rania then added that “education alone isn’t the solution. We need jobs as well. Recent estimates indicate that we need to create over 100 million jobs by 2020 to absorb new entrants into the labor market.”
    Acknowledging the job creation challenge, Her Majesty was nonetheless optimistic about emerging opportunities in the region: “The good news is that new industries are emerging. The digital landscape is evolving. And internet connectivity and mobile technologies are creating new horizons for entrepreneurs. Arab internet users are growing at around 20 per cent annually. Mobile penetration at around 110 per cent.”
    Her Majesty also highlighted the potential of e-commerce in the region, as well as the ICT sector that is set to hit USD20 billion in 2020.
    “A burgeoning technology sector. An insatiable consumer market. And a huge youth population hungry for opportunity. The conditions for explosive growth are within reach.” Her Majesty said.
    Talking about the resources the Arab World possess, Her Majesty said our region has the values, the money, the minds, the youth, the technology, the market, the networks, and the motivation to tap into these reserves and create lasting change.
    Ending her speech, Queen Rania said: “For the sake of each one of us…for Islam and the Arab world…for the future of our young people, we must create a new narrative and broadcast it to the world. Because if we don’t decide what our identity is…and what our legacy will be, the extremists will do it for us.”
    Earlier at the summit, the Chairman of the Abu Dhabi Media Summit, H.E. Khaldoon Khalifa Al Mubarak, welcomed Queen Rania and media industry guests to Abu Dhabi, and reflected on the importance of the media industry to the regional economy.
    “The media sector is becoming increasingly far ranging and relevant. From a regional perspective, our industry represents an ever-increasing and significant contributor to the regional economy,” Al Mubarak said.
    He went on to describe the market opportunity in MENA, which is being driven by the relentless increase in connectivity in the region. He gave comment on how media innovation is transforming the way students receive and engage with information, and how twofour54 is responding with a number of initiatives to support the industry’s development.
    “All of twofour54’s investments are giving young UAE Nationals unprecedented access to a thriving industry in which they can learn their craft, improve their skills, develop new ideas and help shape the media sector of the future.”
    He added that “through education and training the media industry has an unrivalled potential to contribute to the development of future generations, formally and informally, directly and indirectly, in this region and globally. That is both a huge opportunity and a great responsibility.”
    While introducing Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah, he reminded the audience of Her Majesty’s strong advocacy of education in the Middle East and North Africa, saying “I can think of no better person to open our Summit on the future of media in the MENA region and beyond.”
    This year’s three day programme features a series of panel discussions, interviews and presentations by seasoned industry leaders as well as new players. Each day is focused around a particular industry topic: content creation, distribution and financing.
    Day two of the Abu Dhabi Media Summit – which is open to the public – will kick off tomorrow with a presentation by Facebook’s Vice President of Europe, Middle East and Africa, Nicola Mendelsohn. This will be followed by a panel discussion on technology, social media and women in MENA, featuring Princess Ameera Al-Taweel, Founder and CEO of Time Entertainment and Dalya Al Munthanna, CEO of GE Gulf, among others.
    Robert A. Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard will take to the stage to discuss the gaming sector, while Gerhard Zeiler President of Turner Broadcasting International will be interviewed on the future of broadcasting. In a keynote speech, CEO of Imax Corporation Richard Gelfond will address the next big thing for the big screen.
    The disruptive impact of online video and the ‘second screen’ on the medium of television will be discussed by panellists from Twitter, Sky News Arabia, Istikana and BBC Future Media. Sam Barnett, CEO of MBC, and twofour54’s Chief Legal Officer, Greg Sweeting will participate in the final panel discussion of day two, which will look combatting content piracy in the digital age.
    The full programme and list of speakers can be found on the ADMS 2014 website: www.admediasummit.com. 



    There was more wisdom and more bravery in her statements than in anything Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has publicly stated in his six months in office.

    As Queen of Jordan, she already has a profile and when she's willing to wade in and risk political capital, you'd think the idiots at the US State Dept would grasp what a moment they had and work to promote the speech and the remarks she made.

    No US official -- not even Barack -- carries as much weight as she does.  But they failed -- as this White House always does -- to seize the moment.

    Had they promoted her remarks, they might have jump started a conversation.


    Instead the issue of Iraq today is as it was yesterday, as it is every day since the start of the illegal war, one of violence.


    Alsumaria reports a bombing outside of Baghdad today left 1 Iraqi soldier dead and three more injured while a bombing just north of Baghdad left another person injured and 2 suicide car bombers to the south of Tikrit took their own lives and the lives of 6 Iraqi security forces with twenty-nine more left injured.  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 162 dead across Iraq.


    To note some of the above, I tabled a hearing I attended.  We may pick that up in tomorrow's snapshot.  We may not.  We may also go after another media outlet that lies about Iraq.  I'm curious to see how they'll cover Brian Williams' six month suspension.  If they whore for him, we'll certainly be addressing them tomorrow.

    As promised, we'll close with the full press statement from IAVA:
    Washington D.C. (February 10, 2015) – This evening House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signed the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act certifying its passage during an enrollment ceremony. The Speaker was joined by Susan and Richard Selke, parents of Clay Hunt, Paul Rieckhoff, IAVA CEO and Founder, and IAVA member veterans who were present for the ceremony. The Clay Hunt SAV Act, which passed the House in January and the Senate unanimously last week, will combat veteran suicide and improve access to mental health care. The legislation is named after Marine sniper Clay Hunt from Texas, who died by suicide in 2011. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) commends Congress for standing with our veterans and passing the bipartisan bill.
    The bill now goes to President Obama, who will sign it into law on Thursday, February 12, 2015. Click here to visit a timeline of IAVA’s work on combating suicide.
    “We are so thankful for Speaker Boehner holding this ceremony today, and for the members of Congress who helped pass this bill so quickly at the beginning of this session. Last year, Richard and I began this journey to make sure not another veteran faces the obstacles Clay did when accessing mental health care,” said Susan Selke, mother of Clay Hunt. “While this bill is not a remedy to a complicated issue, it does help address gaps in accessing mental health care. Had legislation like this existed years ago I believe Clay would be here with us today. We are fortunate to see our country is now one step closer to reversing this terrible suicide rate.”
    “This is a historic day for IAVA members and veterans nationwide. After a year of hard work urging Washington to focus its attention on veteran suicide, we have finally come full circle,” said IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff. “We thank Speaker Boehner and Congress for passing this bill and making sure our veterans get the mental health care they so desperately need. We also thank Senators McCain and Blumenthal for leading on this issue and reintroducing the bill as their first agenda items this year. IAVA also applauds Rep. Tim Walz for introducing the House version and Chairman Jeff Miller for his stewardship. Their leadership and commitment to veterans have been vital in this fight. Next, our veterans look forward to seeing the bill signed into law at Thursday’s signing ceremony at the White House. The brave men and women who served our country will now begin to receive the access to the quality mental health care they were promised and rightfully deserve.”
    Developed by IAVA and its allies on Capitol Hill, and driven by quantitative and qualitative data from IAVA’s annual member survey, the Clay Hunt SAV Act will:
    Increase Access to Mental Health Care and Capacity at VA to Meet Demand
    · Requires the VA to create a one-stop, interactive website to serve as a centralized source of information regarding all VA mental health services for veterans.
    · Addresses the shortage of mental health care professionals by authorizing the VA to conduct a student loan repayment pilot program aimed at recruiting and retaining psychiatrists.
    · Extends Combat-Eligibility for mental health care services at VA for one-year, providing for increased access for veterans that may be suffering from conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
    Improve the Quality of Care and Boosting Accountability at VA
    · Requires evaluations of all mental health care and suicide prevention practices and programs at the VA to find out what’s working and what’s not working and make recommendations to improve care.
    Develop a Community Support System for Veterans
    · Establishes a peer support and community outreach pilot program to assist transitioning servicemembers with accessing VA mental health care services.

    Note to media: Email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699 to speak with IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff or IAVA leadership.
    Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has nearly 300,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its 10th year anniversary, IAVA recently received the highest rating - four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.









    Posted by at

    Tuesday, February 10, 2015

    Who owned the Grammys?




    The Brian Williams' lying scandal just got noted in Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Nightly News Fill In" earlier today.

    Did you watch the Grammys?

    What the hell was Madonna thinking?

    She looked like an 80-year-old Mae West.

    But the best musical performance had to be Hozier and Annie Lennox teaming up on his "Take Me To Church" and then serving up Screamin' Jay Hawkins' "I Put A Spell On You."

    If you missed it, Vogue has it up with praise from their writer Alex Frank.

    I think Annie owned the Grammys with those two songs and she put a lot of her peers (like Madonna) and a lot of people who came after to shame.



    Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


    Monday, February 9, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack wants authorization for his war, Queen Raina Al Abdullah wants the region to know they determine their own priorities, US Gen Barry Allen says Iraqi forces will soon begin a counteroffensive, US State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki argues whether his words were true, the lies of Brian Williams just continue to multiply, and so much more.



    Today Jordan's Queen Raina Al Abdullah addressed a summit in Dubai via videolink.  Petra quotes her stating of the Islamic State:


     The Muslim is the man they murdered. The one who observed the pillars of his faith; who honored his parents; and served his country. A man [slaughtered Jordanian pilot Muath Al-Kasabeh]  who made it his mission to defend his country and his faith -- a mission he lived and died by.  [. . .]  We are in a race against time to adopt policies that address the priorities which confront us today: most importantly, to eliminate the ideology of hate and terrorism, not just militarily, but ideologically as well.
    Also today, her husband, King Abdullah II, met with US President Barack Obama's Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State, Gen John Allen.  AFP notes:

    “There will be a major counter offensive on the ground in Iraq,” John Allen, the chief envoy for the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group, said in an interview with Jordan’s official Petra news agency.

    “In the weeks ahead, when the Iraqi forces begin the ground campaign to take back Iraq, the coalition will provide major firepower associated with that,” he added, stressing that the Iraqis would lead the offensive.


    Allen's remarks were an issue raised at today's US State Dept press briefing where spokesperson Jen Psaki faced  questions from Al Quds' Said Arikat.



     QUESTION: I just wanted to start where you began at the top --
    MS. PSAKI: Okay.
    QUESTION: -- about General Allen.
    MS. PSAKI: Yes.
    QUESTION: He gave statements yesterday basically suggesting that an assault, a ground assault maybe, is imminent. Could you clarify that?
    MS. PSAKI: That’s not actually what he said, Said.
    QUESTION: Okay. Well --
    MS. PSAKI: I’m happy to – I believe I have his quote in here somewhere, so let me check on that. One, I think any military action that would be taken in Iraq to address the threat of ISIL would be led by the Iraqi Security Forces. Obviously, they’re – continue to be in the training phase, and it remains our belief that they need to be ready.
    Let me just pull up, I believe I have it in here, what exactly General Allen said. He said, “And in the weeks ahead when the Iraqi forces begin the ground campaign to take back Iraq, the coalition will provide major firepower associated with that.” So the Arab component will be in action supporting Iraqi Security Forces. We support their efforts. They would be in the lead. We want them to be prepared. I don’t have any other predictions beyond that.
    QUESTION: But the message there is that second attack is imminent, correct?
    MS. PSAKI: I don’t – I did not hear it or read it that way, and that is not what he was conveying.
    QUESTION: Okay. The reason I’m asking this, because there has been talk about a spring offensive to liberate Mosul, and this has been going on for a long time. But then exactly 10 days ago or so, General Lloyd Austin, commander of the central command, said that that was not the case. He was – basically described that there is no coordination between the Peshmerga forces and the Iraqi forces, all of the different forces that need to be involved in any kind of ground assault to liberate Mosul, hence the confusion. So would you say now this confusion has been cleared?
    MS. PSAKI: Well, there has been coordination. I don’t know what quote you’re referencing, but that’s inaccurate and not reflective of all of the coordination that’s happening. Obviously, the Department of Defense and the Government of Iraq would be the most appropriate entities to talk about operational planning; they don’t typically outline that publicly. So again, we’re working with them, we want them to be ready. Beyond that, I don’t have any predictions of additional next steps.
    QUESTION: And finally from my side, also General Allen said – put the blame squarely on the former government of Nouri al-Maliki for the collapse of the Iraqi army back in June of last year, and then when Mosul fell to ISIS fighter. Do you have any comment on that?

    MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, as we know, Said, and we’ve talked about a bit in here, there were – there was a lack of preparedness, certainly, by the security forces; many were taken by surprise. We talked about that quite extensively last winter. And there’s no question that we have encouraged, many countries in the region have encouraged Prime Minister Abadi to operate in a different way and to be more inclusive of the Sunni tribes, be more inclusive about how he is overseeing the building of the military. So I don’t think anything should come as a surprise in that regard.

    You have to feel sorry for Jen Psaki and Marie Harf.  August 8th, Barack Obama's 'plan' kicked off with bombings.  The US planes -- and others in the coalition -- continue to bomb Iraq.

    And it's really made no visible impact at all.

    Yet they're expected to spin it as a success and as a plan.


    There has been no success.  The editorial board of the Washington Post points out that the White House attempts to sell the 'answer' as a national guard in Iraq but there's still no national guard:




    The problem is that legislation to create the guard has yet to pass the Iraqi parliament; Shiite leaders are reluctant to grant authority to the Sunni tribes. Meanwhile, ammunition and other gear promised to the Sunni tribesmen is not getting through, for much the same reason. Mr. Abadi, who is praised by Mr. Abu Risha for his conciliatory steps, has nevertheless failed to bridge the divide. He has also failed to establish the government’s authority over Iranian-backed Shiite militias, which, with no supply problems, are retaking ground from the Islamic State, sometimes with U.S. air support, and then imposing their own sectarian rule.
    In his Senate confirmation hearing, Defense Secretary-designate Ashton Carter said red tape had often frustrated prompt delivery of U.S. arms supplies and vowed to tackle the problem once he is on office. That’s welcome, but the trouble in Iraq appears to be more than a bureaucratic blunder. Festering political problems in Baghdad have not been addressed, and President Obama’s commitment of resources and extended timeline for action are simply inadequate. As Mr. Abu Risha told us: “The longer [Islamic State] is in Anbar the more dangerous they will be.”
    The hearing on Ashton Carter's nomination to be Secretary of Defense was Wednesday.  We covered it in two snapshots last week:  "Iraq snapshot"  and  "Iraq snapshot."  In the hearing, it was clear that Iraq's crises will not be solved by dropping bombs on the country.
    One such exchange:
    Ranking Member Jack Reed: One of the issues  -- particular with respect to Iraq --  is that not only  improvement as you suggest in your comments, the longterm defeat, uh, of ISIL rests not just on military operations but on political arrangements.  And what we've witnessed in Iraq particularly was a political arrangement that consciously and deliberately degraded the Sunni population.  At least, that's there perception.  And it gave rise.  So would you acknowledge that part of a strategy has to be constituting an Iraqi government that is perceived by its own people as being a bit fairer and inclusive?
    Ashton Carter: Absolutely.  That's what the previous government of Iraq did not do and that was instrumental in their military collapse.

     Ranking Member Jack Reed: And one of the issues that complicates, you've pointed out, in terms of Iran being a strategic issue for the United States in the region is their relative influence in Iraq and throughout the region was enhanced over the last several years by the government in Iraq, by the [Nouri al-] Maliki government.  Is that accurate?

     Ashton Carter:  That is accurate, yes.
    And yet still no work on the political.


    But apparently the White House does remember its past time to get a fig leaf of Congressional authority to 'legalize' Barack's actions in Iraq.  Patricia Zengerle (Reuters) reports:

    The White House will ask Congress by Wednesday for new authority to use force against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, congressional aides said on Monday, paving the way for lawmakers’ first vote on the scope of a campaign that is already six months old.


    Kristina Wong (The Hill) adds, "The new resolution will likely spark a contentious debate over the U.S. strategy against the terror group. Democrats have warned against mission creep and want set limits on U.S. action, including barring the use of ground troops. But Republicans warn that they will reject any language that could handcuff efforts to fight ISIS."


    And how will Congress address the issue of the Shi'ite militias?









    • The White House appears unaware of just how bothered Congress is over the militias.


    It's true that Ashton Carter was able to glide over the topic.

    But in his barest of moments on the subject, he agreed with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who were bothered by the Shi'ite militias targeting Sunnis throughout Iraq -- and doing so under the protection of the Baghdad government.

    This wasn't just one political party. Democrats and Republicans were clearly bothered.

    And the White House really thinks Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's weak statements at a press conference two Saturdays ago have calmed concerns in the Senate and House.

    That's just not the case.


    Meanwhile, Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports, violence in Baghdad has left "at least 22 people [dead] and wounded dozens. Deutsche Welle points out, "On Saturday, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi had lifted a midnight-5 a.m. curfew in place in Baghdad in various forms since 2004, when Iraq fell into violent chaos following the US-led invasion the year before. On Saturday, multiple bombings in the capital killed 35 people."  Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 96 dead across the country with seventy more left injured.




    This afternoon, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Nightly News Fill In" went up.  It features Lester Holt behind the anchor desk for NBC Nightly News with Holt saying, "Good evening.  I'm Lester Holt.  Brian Williams is off tonight.  When he returns, who knows what made up s**t he's going to tell."


    After years of lying about coming under fire or being hit or whatever struck in the moment, Brian Williams' tale of Iraq near-miss finally exploded in his face.  Travis J. Tritten (Stars and Stripes) explains what happened:


     NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted Wednesday he was not aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by RPG fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a false claim that has been repeated by the network for years.
    Williams repeated the claim Friday during NBC’s coverage of a public tribute at a New York Rangers hockey game for a retired soldier that had provided ground security for the grounded helicopters, a game to which Williams accompanied him.


    Brian Williams is in the midst of a scandal of his own making.  He lied repeatedly and finally got caught.  I stated last week that Ava and I would weigh in and we did with "TV: NBC's Biggest Diva: Little Miss Brian Williams" noting that NBC had allowed their so-called journalists to cross the line into celebrity and had degraded their own brand.  Brian had grown to see himself not as a reporter -- governed by facts -- but as a celebrity who didn't have to follow the rules. 

    It's a point the editorial board of the Mesabi Daily News grasps, "But the celebrity and performer in Williams obviously took Williams the journalist hostage. And when that happens to this degree, it is a big and bad thing for journalism, which is based on the trust of readers and viewers."

    Brian Moylan attempts to make similar points but gets lost as an only an idiot like Brian Moylan can. He should probably stick to the topics he can almost handle -- like his weekly recaps of the 'real' housewives of wherever or "How to suck an uncut cock" or "NFL Players We Wish Were Gay" or any of his many laments to the demise of the gay bathhouses and the unprotected, random sex that took place there.

    The Guardian's just as stupid as Moylan because they label his scribbles an "analysis."


    The discrediting of journalist Brian Williams doesn't matter -- unlike which NFL player is a bottom and which is versatile? -- because NBC wants him to be an entertainer, Moylan insists, and that's what people want to.  They'd rather get their news from, Moylan insists, Jon Stewart.

    Uh, actually no.

    When you're that stupid, stick to writing about porn and trashy 'reality' shows.

    What an idiot.

    Many fools make this argument at other times.

    But here's reality: It doesn't matter one bit how many people love Jon Stewart.

    The Daily Show pulling in 2.02 million viewers is considered amazing.  By contrast, Rick Kissell (Variety) reports on Friday's ratings -- and noting that Friday is generally the lowest rated broadcast of the evening news programs, we're still left with these numbers: "in total viewers, ABC (8.461 million) beat out NBC (7.979 million) for its only nightly victory of the week, with the former down 10% from its Monday-Thursday average and the latter down 20%."

    Now that's too much reality for Brian Moylan to handle.  

    In his simple minded world, it's all about trending and other bulls**t.

    Reality, Brian Williams is not paid millions of dollars by NBC News to be 'cool' on late night television.  He's paid to bring in viewers as the anchor of Nightly News.

    Jon Stewart's viewers, let's be brutally honest, who don't watch news don't really care about the news.  They're not getting their news from Jon, they're getting their chuckles.

    There has been one failed attempt after another to make the news trendy -- most recently the nightmare that is Ronan Farrow's hideous MSNBC program.  

    They fail.

    They fail over and over because 'analysts' and suits are idiots.

    A very tiny portion of Jon Stewart's audience cares enough to follow the news.

    The rest of them watch to chuckle and to enjoy the celebrity portion of the show -- the interviews.  It's not even pretending to be a news program -- Jon himself notes that he is a comic.

    People interested in news will follow it -- on TV, radio, podcast, in print, whatever.  

    They don't need it to be 'entertaining,' they want it to be more accurate.

    Brian Williams lies may not mean a thing to someone writing about how to suck an uncut cock, but outside the trash culture, among news consumers, it matters whether you lie or tell the truth. 

    Brian's lied.

    He's betrayed his post.  He's betrayed news consumers.


    And all the idiots lusting over the small number of viewers for The Daily Show should grasp the number of network news consumers far outnumbers the people tuning in for The Daily Show.  Combining just NBC and ABC together have eight times as many viewers as The Daily Show, if you add in the viewers of The NewsHour and CBS Evening News, the audience for a network newscast is even larger -- is push what should be news programming into entertainment fluff which is cheap and easy to produce.

    Jon Stewart is pretty much useless.  Comedy Central knows his best days are behind him and Jon had hoped he'd have a directing career by now (didn't happen).  He's old.  His hair's gray.  He's trying to make a largely uninformed audience laugh.

    So today he went on about Brian without dislcosing Brian's a personal friend. 

    And he demonstrated why he can deliver news.

    Jon has to be funny.

    When the truth won't get a laugh, the truth is tossed aside.

    Jon Stewart's big joke tonight was that finally someone had been held accountable for misleading regarding Iraq.

    The 2006 and 2008 elections were repudiations of the Republican Party which most strongly held to the lies leading into the Iraq War.  

    In addition, Judith Miller lost her job at the New York Times.

    That was over Iraq.  Maureen Dowd got it right in her column.  The paper would have cut her even sooner if she hadn't refused to name sources on another matter (the outing of Valerie Plame).

    That's two right there who've paid -- the Republican Party and Judith Miller.

    And we can name many others.

    But that truth would've spoiled Jon Stewart's punchline.

    And that's why he's not news.  He repeatedly drops out anything that steps on the laugh line.

    It's left to Greg Mitchell to point out what Jon also left out:

  • 1 hour ago
    Jon Stewart defends Brian Williams by hitting media lies getting us into Iraq --which, BTW, Williams defended.
    4 retweets 7 favorites




    • As for Brian Williams' lies, Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) has a good run down of how Brian's stories (a) enhance his own image and (b) are actually all beyond belief.  For example:


    He also told a strange-seeming story about the sandstorm which forced his team to hunker down in the desert for three days.

    The sandstorm was real. Did the rest of this peculiar-sounding story actually happen?
    WILLIAMS: [Bradley fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks] surrounded us for three days during the sandstorm that was so big it suspended the war effort. It was called Orange Crush. And they got us out of their alive.

    LETTERMAN: You were on the ground, in combat, for three days?

    WILLIAMS: Yeah—unbeknownst to anyone back here. NBC sent my wife and children to The Breakers in Florida to keep their minds off it and keep them occupied because no one knew where we were. We couldn’t be in touch.
    Really? Williams was missing in a war zone for three days. In response, NBC sent his wife and his kids to a fancy hotel in Florida “to keep their minds off it?” And they actually went?

    Everything is possible! But that sounds strange to us.




    And in yet more bad news for Brian Williams, Braden Goyette (Huffington Post) reports, "Now a video from 2007 has surfaced in which Williams claims that the RPG fired at his helicopter, in addition to downing the one in front of him, and that he was close enough to stare down the barrel of the weapon."

    Yeah, he's been lying for years.  NBC News bosses told him to stop repeating the Iraq tale.  He refused to.  He knew it was a lie and he just kept lying.







     
     



    kristina wong

    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)