Friday, June 27, 2014

Barack's non-combat troops

With Barack's sending 'non-combat troops' into Iraq this week, it's worth revisiting Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Non-Combat Troops" from August 8, 2010.


non combat troops

Two US soldiers in Iraq. One says, "So now, magically, we're 'non-combat' troops. What does that mean?" Second one replies, "I guess it means we act like our commander-in-chief. Pose for a ton of photos, go on a lot of vacations and yack it up with the ladies of The View." Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.


Today, UPI reports:

Pentagon spokesman Col. Steven Warren said, of the 500 American military personnel in Iraq, "Some of them are conducting an advise and assist mission, some are manning the joint operations center, some of them are part of the [Office of Security Cooperation] and yet others are Marines that are part of a [fleet anti-terrorism security team] platoon."

A fleet anti-terrorism security team?  Hmm.  All Iraq News notes only 180 of the 500 are 'advisors' so 120 are still en route to make up Barack's 300 'advisors.'

At any rate, dropping back to the June 19th snapshot:

Let's flip through the scrapbook some more. August 31, 2010, Barack gave a speech from the Oval Office.  Anyone remember it?  Here's the opening:


Good evening.  Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.
I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans.  We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war.  We’ve endured a long and painful recession.  And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation -- a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity -- may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment.  It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.


Yea!  War was over!  Combat troops were out of the country!  What was left was 'advisers,' right?

So he gave that speech August 31, 2010.

What happened the next month?  Anyone, remember?


Here's a hint: Seven.   And, no, we're not talking Jeri Ryan's character on Star Trek: Voyager.

7 was the number of US troops who died in Iraq in September 2010, when 'combat' operations were over and all 'combat' troops had left the country.

October 2010: 2 US troops were killed.

November 2010:  2 US troops were killed.

December 2010: 1

January 2011: 6

February 2011: 3

March 2011: 2

April 2011: 11

May 2011: 2

June 2011: 15

July 2011: 5

Zero for August 2011

September 2011: 4

October 2011: 4

November 2011: 2

Zero for December 2011.

Zero for January 2012.

August 31, 2010, Barack gave a speech about 'combat' soldiers leaving Iraq and 'combat' operations having ended but 66 troops would die after 'combat' ended.



Today's big news?  The Peshmerga, elite Kurdish forces, entered Kirkuk this month to provide protection.  Aslumaria reports KRG President Massoud Barzani declares that action is a form of Article 140 and the issue of who has the right to Kirkuk -- the KRG or the central government out of Baghdad -- has been decided with this action.


Today's violence?  Alsumaria reports 3 young Shabak were kidnapped in Nineveh Province, a mortar attack on a village east of Baquba left 6 civilians dead and two more injured, a Diyala Province battle left 1 rebel dead and two security forces injured, a Samarra mortar attack left 2 security forces dead and seventeen more injured, security forces killed 15 suspects in Latifiya, the corpses of 2 young men were discovered dumped in Kirkuk, and, dropping back to late last night, a Samarra mortar attack left 1 Iraqi soldier dead and eight more injured.



The following community sites -- plus Ms. magazine's blog, the Guardian, McClatchy Newspapers, Tavis Smiley, Jake Tapper and Jody Watley -- updated:



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

    Free speech needs to be free

    If the awful Media Matters had been around in the 70s, David Frost would have been slammed for interviewing Tricky Dick Nixon -- or maybe Frost would have taken a pass to avoid the clanging from Media Matters and its echo chambers?

    As Ava and I noted in "TV: That awful Rachel BadFoul," we reject the notion that someone is shut out of a national debate because they were wrong about something.

    To have an honest discussion, people need to be able to make mistakes.

    There's a difference in being wrong and in lying.

    As someone who spoke out against the Iraq War before it started, I know that those of us against the illegal war were shut out of the debate in the MSM.  Why would I mistake petty revenge -- insisting the other side be shut out now -- for justice?

    The discussions need to be wide ranging.  The answer is never to cut off the pro or the con side.  The answer is to let both compete in the public square and the argument that wins is the one that's the strongest.

    It is amazing how many holler monkeys on the left are actually the identical twins of many on the right and don't grasp what free speech is or that you defend everyone's right to it.


    Jules Witcover (Baltimore Sun) notes gadfly Eric Boehlert's latest nonsense at Media Matters which, yes, is another long whine that this person and that person must be shut out of the debate:

    Or is the author trying to rehabilitate his own eight-year-old book on a compliant press, mentioned in his lament? 
    Nowhere in this screed is any light shed on whether Jonathan Karl ever took any position on the air for or against the invasion of Iraq that would put him in league as a "media elite" with the "Iraq war architects" like Mr. Cheney. It does not seem to dawn on the author that by asking Mr. Cheney and other "war sponsors" about it, voters can be reminded of how wrong these experts were about what arguably was the worst foreign-policy misadventure in American history.


    Poor Media Matters, poor David Brock.  People are tired of their shortcuts, their distortions and their lies.

    That David Brock was ever accepted by the left goes to a lack of standards.  Don't forget, Naomi Wolf was his entry point, the 'feminist' who refused to help a rape victim in college because her boyfriend belonged to the frat -- a gang-rape victim -- and she thought stepping forward or even objecting would get her called a "lesbian."  It's been one long series of dubious decisions for Naomi.  All David Brock did was allow the left to (a) be distracted and (b) embrace the worst of the right-wing.  David poisoned the right-wing, we were idiots to let him come over and reproduce the same methods but for 'our side.'

    It's interesting when these people make their arguments for censorship, they really need a stupid and forgetful public to do so.  For example, Rachel Maddow supported the Iraq War.  Who is she to call out anyone for being wrong about the illegal war?  Why isn't Media Matters insisting Joshua Michah Marshall stop speaking since he, also, supported the Iraq War?  Ezra Klein, same deal.

    It's funny how Media Matters and their ilk are  so concerned now but when their friends were getting jobs -- their friends who supported the Iraq War -- they didn't decry that.  They didn't ask why those who were right about the illegal war weren't getting hired.


    Now they fret and freak over the likes of Dick Cheney.

    Some of us stood up to Cheney in real time.  We still can.

    But little babies can't stand up, they need to be held because they're babies, not adults.

    If all Media Matters has to offer is, "Don't let ____ speak!," maybe they should go silent themselves.



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











































    and

    US Congress Has Many Reasons for Impeaching Obama

    Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor  at the University of Illinois College of Law. His books include Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) and Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009).   His most recent book is United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law.   He speaks to RIA Novosti about how the "US Congress Has Many Reasons for Impeaching Obama." Excerpt.




    WASHINGTON, June 26 (RIA Novosti) – The US Congress can impeach President Barack Obama on many charges that do not even require hearings, Francis Boyle, a constitutional scholar and law professor at University of Illinois, told RIA Novosti Thursday.
    “There are many grounds for impeachment. With the dire situation of the country, I think we need a silver bullet approach. We need to stop Obama. He can be impeached by the House on charges that do not require hearings, the evidence is all there in the public record,” Boyle, who worked with Democratic Representative Henry B. Gonzales in impeachment charges against President George H.W. Bush, said.
    The expert outlined the charges that can be brought without hearings include Obama’s violation of the War Powers clause of the Constitution as well as the War Powers Act of 1973 in executing the 2011 war in Libya without Congressional authorization.

    He went further, alleging that Obama is guilty “of the murder of four US citizens in violation of the 5th amendment guaranteeing due process.” Boyle referred to the drone assassinations which killed US citizens and was justified in a 2010 White House legal memorandum recently released to the public.