The Common Ills: Pillar as dumb blond

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Pillar as dumb blond

Lorelei Lee: Excuse me, but what is the way to Europe, France?

Dorothy Shaw: Honey, France is in Europe.

Lorelei Lee: Well, who said it wasn't?

Dorothy Shaw: Well... you wouldn't say you wanted to go to North America, Mexico.

Lorelei Lee: If that's where I wanted to go, I would.

Dorothy Shaw: The dealer passes.

That's from Howard Hawks' Gentlemen Prefer Blondes with Jane Russell playing Dorothy Shaw and Marilyn Monroe playing Lorelei Lee.

Who's Paul Pilar playing?

"Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq . . ." Oh, Paul, Marilyn was a very talented actress. She could pull off a dumb but lovable character. You can't.

Pillar writes a piece for The National Interest entitled "The Surge of Violence in Iraq" -- and if lies and half-truths are in the national interest, maybe Pillar's accomplished something?

Pillar's another creep who worked in the CIA and then made hay with the faux left via creeps like Robert Parry who mistook partisan lying for information and reporting.

Pillar's got nothing to offer so he just recycles Bush hatred.

For those late to the party, one of my happiest moments during the bleak Bully Boy Bush years was watching Dick Cheney turn red face with rage as I flipped him the bird. And we never used -- still haven't -- the "p" word in front of Bush's name. Instead, he got the title "Bully Boy." We called him and Dick out constantly. That's what you do.

When they're in power.

Pillar, Parry and so many others hide behind Bush today. They trot out their anger and toss it at Bully Boy Bush and think this makes for bravery and that no one will notice that Barack's in his second term and they refuse to call him out. They've babied him for so long, that's all they can do. Robert Parry's wet nursed Barack for so long, his nipples are sore.

So he hands the crying Barack off to Pilar who notes:

The upsurge of violence in Iraq has generated surprisingly little new policy debate in Washington. That's probably a good thing, because there is little that the United States can do, or should try to do, about it anyway. If it is generally accepted that the United States ended its Iraq misadventure nearly two years ago and that there is no political basis for trying to reverse that ending, that is a good thing. At least, it is good as long as we do not lose sight of the principal long-term lessons of what we are witnessing, including the futility of trying to inject democracy through the barrel of a gun and how the overthrow of even nefarious dictators is not sufficient to open the door to justice and tranquility.

There is so much stupidity in that but let's focus first on the 'democracy' nonsense. That would pass for brave if this was 2004. That point's been repeatedly for over a decade and Pillar can't offer any better than that.

Is it "generally accepted that the United States ended it Iraq misadventure nearly two years ago"?

Well not by the State Dept which has been giving billions to oversee the US mission in Iraq in the last two years.

And if Pillar wants to pretend that doesn't matter, let's go to the Decmeber 10, 2012 snapshot to extract a few things. First:

How many US troops remain in Iraq? December 12, 2011, Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC) about what was really taking place in Iraq -- what 'reporters' insisted on calling a 'withdrawal' but what the Pentagon had termed a "drawdown." Excerpt.

MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?

AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.

US forces never left Iraq. That's why the military brass repeatedly used the term "drawdown" and not "withdrawal." In addition to the forces Koppel noted, there were approximately 200 'trainers.' Back to the December 12, 2012 snapshot:

As September drew to a close, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported that the US had just sent in a Special-Ops division into Iraq. Yesterday Press TV reported:

Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports.
According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.

Noting those 3,000 troops going into Iraq, The Voice of Russia adds today, "Another 17,000-strong force is preparing to cross the Kuwait-Iraq border over time, Iraqi press says."

Now let's go to the April 30th Iraq snapshot:

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way.

The MoU provides for joint-patrols -- US and Iraq. Pillar needs to stop lying to the American people.

But if he didn't lie, would Robert Parry repost him?

Lies are all over Pillar's piece.

This one may be the funniest:

Maliki is, however, accepted as a legitimate leader and interlocutor who may be around for some time. (He faces re-election in April.)

The obvious response is that Nouri isn't accepted.

Until you grasp Pillar doesn't mean by Iraqi people, he's talking about the US government. His emphasis on that being in complete conflict with his claims about "democracy" imposed by a gun. Pillar's so stupid he doesn't even realize it. He has little legitimacy in Iraq as polling demonstrates.

Also, Nouri wants a third term.

That doesn't he mean he "faces re-election in April."

First off, dumb ass, April 30th may or may not see elections. There is still no election law. Second, the election will be parliamentary elections.

The Iraqi people don't elect a prime minister. Per the Iraqi Constitution, the Parliament is supposed to elect the prime minister.

But the 2005 Constitution has never been honored.

In 2006, the White House rejected the Parliament's choice of Ibrahim al-Jaafari. In 2010, Ayad Allawi was rejected by the White House which insisted on a second term for Nouri and secured it by brokering The Erbil Agreement (which overrode the will and intent of Iraqi voters as well as the country's constitution and democracy).

2010?

That's Barack.

And that decision?

That's what brings on the violence.

We'll go into this in a snapshot this week. Pillar's an idiot.

The violence is a direct result of Barack's actions.

The only thing Pillar gets right is this:

Maliki should be told he needs to spend less time trying to be a player in other peoples' wars and devote more attention to reconciliation and inclusiveness in his own country.

But the reason Nouri offers this is an attempt to make himself useful to the White House (to get their backing for a third term).

The following community sites -- plus Janis Ian, Antiwar.com, Jody Watley, Pacifica Evening News, Ms. magazine's blog and Iraq Inquiry Digest -- updated last night and today: