Saturday, August 13, 2011

Tell the whore likability is not legality

The same paper that sold the illegal war in Iraq -- the ongoing illegal war -- brings out another one-time liberal 'humanitarian.' Like Judith Miller before her, whore Elizabeth Rubin has her own political agenda. In fact, she's worse than Judy Miller who can be called "gullible." There's nothing but guile when it comes to Rubin.

Our 'humanitarian' War Hawk Missile's penned a little piece on the MEK for the New York Times. It's her usual lies and trickery.

That's not a defense of the MEK. We have no opinon on the MEK or the PKK or any other of these organizations. We do have an opinion on residents of Camp Ashraf. They are MEK, yes. But our interest in them is based upon their being in Iraq and our opinion of them is founded in the law -- an interesting concept which Rubin's never understood. The US government promised the residents of Camp Ashraf (an Iranian dissident group) protection. The minute that took place, various laws and treaties came into effect -- something a whore like Elizabeth won't ever address not due to stupidity or bad hair but because she's a whore.

I'm not in the mood.

Scott Horton's entered into a war of words recently with the MEK. He can have a war of words wth anyone he wants and I have no opinion on that except for: WHERE'S THE IRAQ COVERAGE?

Truly, when you're off on a personal war with anyone, you better make sure that doesn't interfere with what you're supposed to be doing. By repeatedly making the MEK his topic, he hasn't had time for Iraq all week. I hope the pissing match has been fun for him because it's made for damn boring radio if you're point in listening to Antiwar Radio is to hear about, yes, the wars. Maybe he can host two shows: Antiwar Radio and Antiterrorist Radio? If so, great. But stop short changing the wars in Iraq and Libya by wagging your cock in your own personal pissing match.

Again, we have no opinion on the MEK and Iran. Our focus in Iraq and we've had to pick up Libay because, take a look around, no one else seems willing to. The boys get to have fun pulling on their cocks and pretending that their little cock fights somehow help the world. But while they fondle themselves, as usual it's the little red hens that get stuck with the work -- the little red hens, the original CODEPINK.

Wars are going on, who's paying attention to the world wars when they're focused on their own little petty wars?

If you're generous to Whore Elizabeth Rudin, she writes three paragraphs about the residents of Camp Ashraf. Three paragraphs . . . in a column that's over thirty paragraphs long.

Whore Elizabeth and others need to grasp a tricky little thing about the law: Likability is not legality.

Likability is not legality.

I know that's difficult for small and for bought minds to grasp but it is reality.

Paid whore Elizabeth wants you to know she visited Camp Ashraf once in 2003. Did that lead her to ever advocate for the residents? No, but it does allow her to make charges and claims that scream: LOOK AT THOSE WEIRDOS!

What might happen in Iran or not? It's up to the people of Iran.

It's called self-determination and cheap whores like Elizabeth don't believe in that. They want to determine what happens. So she's involved in a pissing match of her own with the MEK.

They're a cult, she tells you, forgetting to explain to you her credentials that allow her to make such a judgment. Cult or religion? I wouldn't pretend to claim that I could make that call on any number of groups (including groups in the US). But Liz Rubin can. She can know about that and she can know about Iran and she can know about the US and she can know about what's really deep inside people's hearts and minds because when you slip your twenty in her g-string, you've bought yourself not just a lap dance, but an expert lap dance.

Lizzie's an expert on everything if you pay her.

Strange, all this time she's posed as a journalist. I will assume her editors at the paper will review the column and keep in mind all of her assertions and, yes, her very real bias, when making future assignments?

And I'll assume that her one-sided reporting on Camp Ashraf is just another indication of the fact that the New York Times remains in the gutter not because Judith Miller broke the paper's back but because the paper loves rolling in the gutter.

Here's Rudin, wallowing in her world of whoredom:

It is possible that such plots do not bother General Jones and other supporters of the group. But Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence. Its government wants the Mujahedeen Khalq out of the country by the end of the year. In April, Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. General Jones and other supporters of the group were outraged.
They are right that we should have compassion for those trapped inside the camp. A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will. If the group's American cheerleaders cared for those at the camp half as much as they did for the Rajavis, they would be insisting on private Red Cross visits with each man and woman at Camp Ashraf.
American officials who support the group like to quote the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." By this logic, the group's opposition to the Tehran theocracy justifies American backing. But there is another saying to consider: "The means are the ends."

She is funny. She's not honest, but she's as funny as that face of hers which looks like something that just stumbled out of the barnyard. First paragraph:

It is possible that such plots do not bother General Jones and other supporters of the group. But Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence. Its government wants the Mujahedeen Khalq out of the country by the end of the year. In April, Iraqi forces attacked Camp Ashraf. General Jones and other supporters of the group were outraged.

Iraq will no longer tolerate its presence? Don't you mean that with the overthrow of a Sunni government and the installation of a government composed of exile Shias with ties to Iran, the puppet government will no longer tolerate Camp Ashraf? That's what you mean, right?

I don't understand your use of the term "now," however, since the Iraqi Governing Council passed a resolution calling for Camp Ashraf residents to be expelled December 9, 2003.


Lizzie, is your calendar not up to date? Or are you just that much of a lying whore? I have no idea how someone can be so repeatedly stupid and still be published by a paper . . . Wait, forgot the rule, "Unless of course the paper is the New York Times."Yeah, yeah, yeah, that explains it all. Thank you so very much.


She writes Camp Ashraf was "attacked"? Don't you mean the "massacre" in April. Forget General Jones, that was the term applied by Senator John Kerry.

Of course, when you're a paid whore, you can't be trusted to distribute a deck of cards evenly, you'll always deal from the bottom.


Let's skip to the third paragraph:

American officials who support the group like to quote the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." By this logic, the group's opposition to the Tehran theocracy justifies American backing. But there is another saying to consider: "The means are the ends."

American officials who support the group?

Which group?

The MEK within Iran (and elsewhere) or the residents of Camp Ashraf.

They are two different groups. It's a shame that a lying whore wants to lump them together. I do support the rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf to leave Iraq safely and be relocated elsewhere. That has nothing to do with "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (an idiotic bromide we've long disputed here -- as have many but if Elizabeth Rubin couldn't hump a straw man, she'd probably just be left with an overly large vibrator she'd dubbed El Toro). "The means are the ends"? She's as stupid as she is ugly. No, the law is the law.

Camp Ashraf residents are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. Whore Elizabeth never mentions this. Why is that? Is she unfamiliar with it? Strange because in the second paragraph, she cites a study, a RAND study commissioned by DoD [PDF format warning, "The Mujahedin-e Khalq in Iraq, A Policy Conundrum"] that states this very clearly on pages 13 through 17 of the study. The US was confused as to what the legal status for the residents were. They conducted a review. They then started to apply status. Again, this is in pages 13 through 17 of the study that Rubin cites. Rather strange that she's unfamiliar with it. Pages 19 through 23 deal with Rumsfeld and the White House and the UN and Rumsfeld recognizing them 'in effect' under the Fourth Article of the Geneva Convention for a variety of reasons. ('In effect,' by this point the US is stating the war is over and that the US and the Iraqi 'government' -- puppets -- are engaged in a joint-effort to defeat terrorists in Iraq. For that reason Rumsfeld is stating Geneva per se no longer applies but that, for all intents and purposes, the Fourth Article will be followed with regards to the residents of Camp Ashraf. For legal reasons, that application made them officially and legally protected persons. You can 'per se' it and 'in effect' it all you want, a court is concerned only with what their recognition was. The US was hung up on terms, the court would see, but they were not hung up on what the rights of the residents were. That decision was made and, once made, that decision was binding. If someone can prepare a set of flash cards illustrating this for Elizabeth Rubin, I'm sure she could grasp the concept after two, maybe three months of someone drilling her with them.)

How could Rubin cite a report and be wrong? Hmm. Back to her paragraph two:


They are right that we should have compassion for those trapped inside the camp. A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will. If the group's American cheerleaders cared for those at the camp half as much as they did for the Rajavis, they would be insisting on private Red Cross visits with each man and woman at Camp Ashraf.


"A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will."

That's an interesting . . . 'fact.'


Did Elizabeth Rubin discover that 'fact' by sucking it down to its hairy root? Or possibly it penetrated her from behind?

Elizabeth does what whores do: LIE.

She lies so much she couldn't work anywhere else but the New York Times. The report from RAND did not address that. An appendix to the report (page74, look it up) makes the allegation that "it is possible that nearly 70 percent of the MeK population may have been recruited through deception and kept at Camp Ashraf against their will." It is possible that nearly 70%, in the mouth of a liar, becomes "A 2009 RAND Corporation study found that at least 70 percent of the group's members there were being held against their will."

Only at the New York Times.

"It is possible" also means it's possible that they're wrong. That's what "possible" means. (Again, flashcards please, for Elizabeth.) Shall we contrast "nearly 70%" with "at least 70 percent" or can we all just agree that Elizabeth Rubin is a stupid, lying whore?

Now the RAND report proper, the actual report, not some appendix, is very good at citations. The Appendix is spotty when it comes to citations. And the ten line paragraph in which that maybe appears has many, many figures and zero citations. Or to be Maya Rudolph, "Zero point zero zero" citations.

'Okay,' you say, the citation's not sourced but it could be real.' It could be. That's what "possible" means -- that it could be true or it could be false. If you read the actual report, you'll understand why I'm doubtful of the figure. From pages 42-43 of the RAND report:


Lack of manpower has also meant that MNF-I has never conducted a comprehensive search of Camp Ashraf. The MeK would not allow it, and MNF-I was unwilling to divert manpower at FOB Grizzly from regular regional security missions to force a search upon the group. As a result, there are buildings at Camp Ashraf that no American has ever searched. Former JIATF staff believe that weapons, personnel files, and possibly even MeK members detained by the leadership would likely be
discovered in some of these buildings. At the very least, on the basis of rumors that the MeK were storing WMD for Saddam, the Iraq Survey Group, an international team organized by the Pentagon and the CIA to hunt for Iraq’s alleged WMD stockpiles, should have secured access to every building.

I don't disagree with the issue of access. And I've never claimed to be the smartest person in the room, let alone the world, but I do have the common sense to grasp that any 'estimate' of people in a compound is iffy (at best) if the compound's never been inventoried. Not in the report, in an appendix, you're told that nearly 70% of the residents . . . But there's been no inventory of the residents or the compound. So that figure is useless. And even with it being useless, it wasn't enough for Elizabeth Rubin. She had to take "nearly" and turn it into "at least." With a wave of her magic LYING wand.

And people wonder why the New York Times' reputation is in tatters.

For review purposes for those late to the party, we don't support the US backing any exile group in a war against another country. That's Iraq (which did take place and continues to), that's Cuba, that's Iran, that's anywhere. If someone wants to fight for their country, really wants to fight for it, they take up arms. They don't go whining like little babies to other countries, "Oh, help me, help me! I'm so little and small!" Not only do we not support the US fighting proxy wars on behalf of exiles, I personally think it should be grounds for forcible eviction from this country, if you're found plotting a war against your former country. You want to come to the US for asylum, I'm all for it. You want to come to this country to regroup as you plot your next attack? I don't think you should be allowed on US soil. My opinion. The residents of Camp Ashraf are protected persons and needed to be recognized as such. The massacre last April was the second big attack. Both attacks are in violation of the agreement that the US government and Iraq signed. The US is obviously not going to enforce the agreement. Therefore, it is up to the US State Dept to begin working overtime on finding countries that the residents of Camp Ashraf can be resetteld to. If the residents say "no" to resettlement? My opinion -- disagree if you want -- then the US government states, "We are not able or willing to keep agreement we made with you, we are sorry. But what we can do is resettle you. We will do that for six months/three months and then we're done. You're remaining in Iraq puts you at risk. Your refusal to resettle will be seen as an acknowledgment of that risk and an admission that you are choosing to stay while knowing that the US cannot protect you." My opinion -- feel free to disagree. Do I think that's honorable? No. But it's very clear the US government will no longer live up to the promise it made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and that reality needs to be conveyed so that anyone thinking, "Oh, I'll stay, the US will still protect me, they're just saying that to appease Nouri," gets the message that there is no more protection.


Community sites have updated. We'll do it in two lists and in the first we'll also note Watching America, Susan at Random Thoughts, On The Wilder Side with a very important post, Adam vs The Man, Cindy Sheehan, War News Radio and Washington Week:

OntheWilderSide
Credo lies about Funding Pro-War Politicians
5 hours ago


Ann and Kat aren't on the list above. Despite updating. That's not their fault, that's not my fault. It's a Blogger/Blogspot issue. To make up for it, swiping from Cedric and Wally, here are all the community posts from Thursday on (except for Wally and Cedric's post this evening):

"Green Beans in the Kitchen"
"Robert Reich"
"Baked Sweet Potatoes"
"How many terms?"
"4 women, 2 men"
"3 women, 2 men"
"does he get how he looks?"
"not pretty"
"A verdict"
"David Axelrod: Been Caught Lying"
"Good for Michele Bachmann"
"Lopez gets the axe"
"Out of the closet?"
"That's a winning strategy?"
"Just Go With It"
"White Chicks"
"The Vulture Rudy G"
"They Just Don't Care"
"Idiot of the week"
"Tiring"
"No mystery"
"THIS JUST IN! IT WAS OBVIOUS!"

This is one of two entries I have to do tonight and I have to work forever on this one because the New York Times doesn't fact check. And, please note, I could go on for 17 more paragraphs about the lies and distortions in Elizabeth Rubin's bad column. I don't have that time and I'm pretty pissed that I've lost nearly two hours of my time addressing her garbage. And I've still got to do another entry. And of course do the all night writing session with Third. And I'm really not, as noted before, in the damn mood tonight. Which is how I say, we like Sherwood Ross' writings but the one that follows is the last of its kind we'll highlight. We're not campaign politics -- congrats to Michele Bachmann for winning the Iowa straw poll and to Ron Paul for his strong second place showing -- one is victory with great symbolism (see Kat's post), the other is a victory for those opposed to these wars of choice -- and we try to only note the races when it has to do with the wars. It is 2011. It's not even the election year. Because it's Sherwood Ross, we'll excerpt from his piece. But this is the last time we'll do that. If it's not about a war, I'm not interested. I am so especially not interested -- soooooooooooooooo not interested -- in columns about religion or, even more importantly, what's wrong with someone's religion. I don't make that judgment, I don't concern myself -- stick my nose into -- people's worship. We'll note this piece by Sherwood Ross and then I'm done with it. If you send something similar and say, "Well you noted Sherwood," yeah, and I noted my objection. This is from Ross' "OUTLOOK FOR PEACE DIM IF PERRY ELECTED PRESIDENT" (OpEdNews):


The news that Texas Gov. Rick Perry is seeking the Republican presidential nomination may well send a tremor through the Muslim world.
That's because Perry, an evangelical Christian who would make a formidable candidate, appears to actually believe the U.S. military is divinely directed and is liable to continue U.S. interventions in the region.
At a prayer rally only this past August 6th in Houston's Reliant Stadium that attracted 30,000, he "called on Jesus to bless and guide the nation's military and political leaders," the New York Times reported. And his announcement August 11th that he plans to run for president, the Associated Press said, will delight "conservatives looking for a candidate to embrace." Indeed, if Perry is elected with the the fervid support of the Religious Right, they're surely apt get one!
His election, though, could spell doom for any chance of the restoration of peace in the Middle East in our time.
In a campaign against President Obama, Perry could rally the tens of millions of charismatic Christian voters who have done so much to support the transformation of USA into a full-blown warfare state, supporting the military at every juncture, endorsing the illegal Middle East wars of the Pentagon, blindly backing Israeli interventions, and supplying the military with chaplains who spread an ultra-conservative philosophy among the troops.
According to the website "On The Issues," Perry told a veteran's group in a Memorial Day speech in 2008: "Today our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are on patrol, securing freedom for oppressed people, guarding the tender shoots of a blooming democracy, working to eradicate an infestation of terrorism, so that it does not revisit our nation." This, when the invasions had to do with oil and where the occupiers have shown little, if any, concern for “blooming democracy,” only how to make a buck.
Perry continued, "Time and again, I speak to soldiers who have seen the positive impact of US efforts and tell of Iraqi communities responding to the rule of law." This is sadly hilarious given the thousands of Middle East peoples who have been jailed by USA for years without attorneys and trials and some of whom have been mercilessly tortured and murdered in secret prisons hidden from the Red Cross.
Perry believes, "We have come too far and sacrificed too much to simply walk away and allow the dark forces of oppression to regain control of these places that have been consecrated by the blood of our nation's best." This, as if U.S. occupiers are not widely seen as “oppressors”!







The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


























Posted by at