According to ABC news, Dick Cheney is worried by America’s pullback in Iraq.Dick wants Americans to support the effort around one more corner, and one more after that, and a thousand more after that.But Dick needn’t worry.We’ll be in Iraq for a long, long time.Ditto for the Bananastans.
Ray “Desert Ox” Odierno got all the U.S. troops out of Iraqi cities by the June 30 deadline.At least that’s what the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media tell us.The al Maliki government proclaimed the birth of Iraq’s “sovereignty” from the American occupation, but like Cheney’s turned corners and young Mr. Bush’s “mission accomplished,” the sovereignty claim has been made many times before.And oh, 130,000 American troops still occupy Iraq, the number of troops we had there in January 2007 when “King” David Petraeus began his cockamamie surge.
We all knew this, but it seems the Obama administration wants to keep a lid on it anyway. Why?
"A document filed in federal court this week by the Justice Department
offers new evidence that former vice president Richard B. Cheney helped
steer the Bush administration's public response to the disclosure of
Valerie Plame Wilson's employment by the CIA and that he was at the
center of many related administration deliberations.
The administration's discussion of Wilson's link to the CIA was
meant to undermine criticism by her husband of administration
allegations that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium, a matter that her
husband had probed for the CIA, according to testimony presented in a
2007 trial.
A list of at least seven related conversations involving Cheney
appears in a new court filing approved by Obama appointees at the
Justice Department. In the filing, the officials argue that the
substance of what Cheney told special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald
in 2004 must remain secret."
I am sure Lizzie Cheney will soon be deployed to defend her daddy's treason. Of course this too is troubling:
"The Obama administration has since agreed that the material should not
be disclosed. A Justice Department lawyer at one point last month
argued that vice presidents and other White House officials will
decline to be interviewed in the future if they know their remarks
might "get on 'The Daily Show' " or be used as fodder for political
enemies."
And there you have it. Our leadership is afraid that a comedian will make fun of them for holding to account a man who committed treason. Anyone feel like we have entered a whole new, yet unpublished chapter, of 1984? Maybe we should now use 1985 to explain the realm we are now in?
Hate TV, that is what I am going to call Fox News from this point on. Every single day this "news" outlet sells hate and incites violence. The latest is just unreal. Here is what Glenn Beck guest Michael F. Scheuer said:
""the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama Bin
Ladin to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States...
only Osama can, can execute an attack which can force Americans to
demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently and
with as much violence as necessary."
See it below (h/t to Media Matters)
The guest saying this is not some random lone psychotic. Scheuer is the former head of Alec Station, a CIA OBL tracking group. He is a serious terrorism expert, which is why him saying this on a "news" show is incredibly dangerous and unethical. He is bringing the weight of his authority on a comment of this nature.
Scheuer's passions for another attack, his misplaced and perverted version of patriotism in which killing some Americans justifies the greater good, not to mention his many contacts abroad used to track OBL, should put federal authorities on alert. If this guy is so willing to sacrifice Americans for what he believes is America's protection, then I put nothing past him - not even him strapping on a bomb and waving an American flag while everything goes kaboom.
I did used to respect this guy, although I thought he was a bit out there. Now I think he is just dangerous. Finally, if Scheuer wants OBL to detonate a bomb on American soil, perhaps he should request that the next ground zero be his own home, rather than volunteering the rest of us to die so he can prove a political point.
Fox Hate TV should be ashamed for airing this kind of perverted hope for more dead Americans. I am curious, who gets to pick which Americans will be sacrified to this cause? Or is it a random hope for terrorism with as many casualties as needed to prove a point?
By the way, I did not notice Beck crying as he so famously does whenever he speaks of 9/11, clearly indicating that some terrorism and some dead Americans are okay by him.
Why is seemingly no one as interested in the police attacks against protesters in Honduras as they were with the police attacks on protesters in Iran? In addition to violence, the new president has set a curfew for his people. Here is the latest:
"Protesters demanding the return of their ousted president clashed with
police and army troops here Monday, as the day-old provisional
government found itself severely isolated with world leaders from
President Barack Obama to Venezuela's Hugo Chávez condemning Sunday's
coup."
"Honduras has shut down television and radio stations since an army coup
over the weekend, in a media blackout than has drawn condemnation from
an international press freedom group.
Shortly after the
Honduran military seized President Manuel Zelaya and flew him to Costa
Rica on Sunday, soldiers stormed a popular radio station and shut
international television networks CNN en Espanol and Venezuelan-based
Telesur, which is sponsored by leftist governments in South America.
A pro-government channel also was shut down.
The few local television and radio stations still operating played
tropical music, ran soap operas and aired cooking shows on Monday.
They made little reference to the demonstrations or international
condemnation of the coup even as hundreds of protesters rallied at the
presidential palace in the capital to demand Zelaya's return and an end
to the blackout."
By the way, has anyone been able to locate the actual Supreme Court order that gave the military power to remove Zelaya? Can you please post a link if you have it, because I am unable to find this document, despite claims that it exists.
Rep. Sally Kern (R-OK) should resign from office or be removed because she is clearly in need of immediate medical attention and is unable to properly serve her constituents. From prof Turley:
"Kern has drafted a resolution that puts the current economic
crisis squarely on the backs of libertines and godless people who have
produced a moral crisis. This includes Obama’s refusal to “uphold the
long held tradition of past presidents in recognition of our National
Day of Prayer.”
You may recall Kern from his viral video ranting about gays, here.
Now, she has gone macro economic in showing how free sex can destroy
the free market. It is like the lost chapter of Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Of course, one must remember that, like his successor Kern, Smith held
forth on both moral and economic theories with his publication The Theory of Moral Sentiments. [Richard Posner's Economics and Reason doesn't count and proved far less exciting than its title]."
If she wants to preach on the nature of sin, she can go work at her local church instead of wasting tax dollars trying to codify hate. Again, this is exactly the type of right-wing extremism that has no business in our government. I suggest you read the whole thing, including her attempt at
Just to clarify too, when I say "right-wing" extremism, I am not speaking of Republicans. I am speaking of people who are zealots, often violent, and entirely insane. I call them glue-sniffers, because there is no polite way to describe people of this nature. Kern is a typical glue-sniffer. She needs to resign. Surely the people she represents have more pressing concerns than this waste of legislation proclaiming hate as a virtue? Oklahoma, if you want to be taken off the rolls of red-neck rolls, I suggest you have people of substance represent you.
It ran in the Los Angeles Times so it’s official: the key to Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s success in the Bananastans will be a “civilian surge.”The thinking apparently goes that if McChrystal stops killing as many Afghans as he used to when he was head of the secret Joint Special Operations Command, they’ll flock to his arms in gratitude.
It’s clear that no one in the national security establishment is serious about “winning” in the Bananastans, but they’re certainly serious about their war propaganda.In the old days, four-star generals like David Petraeus had personal public affairs colonels.McChrystal is so important he’s snagged himself a public affairs admiral: Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith.Like all military reporting now, the LAT piece, titled “U.S. to limit airstrikes in Afghanistan to help reduce civilian deaths,” is a poorly camouflaged piece of stenography, and it’s clear that Smith did the dictating.
Posted by Jeff Huber
