hullabalooblog--2020-01-04--Child's guide to war: a film troika by Dennis Hartley

Saturday Night at the Movies Child 's guide to war : a film troika By Dennis Hartley *A reprise of an earlier post , slightly revised , sadly relevant once again Have you heard the reasons why ?
( Yeah , we 've heard it all before ) But have you seen the nation cry ?
( Yeah , we 've seen it all before ) -From `` War Weary World '' by The Call ( *sigh* ) So the boys are rattling their sabers yet again , and America girds its collective loins for possible involvement in Syraqistan or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shit ) Perhaps I 'm ... being childish , what with my naive pacifist wishes and hippy-dippy poster dreams .
It 's a complicated world , and I 'm just a simple farmer .
A person of the land .
The common clay of the American West .
You know ... a moron .
That 's why I 'm just the movie guy around these parts .
That being said , I believe there 's something that the following movies , or more specifically their young protagonists can teach us about such matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential films that offer an immediate ground-level view of the effects of war , filtered through the eyes of innocents , uncluttered by any political machinations or jingoist agendas .
Hey , feel free to invite your favorite war hawk over for dinner and a movie .
Just make sure that they are taking notes : Grave of the Fireflies - For many years , the term 'anime ' conjured up visions of saucer-eyed cartoon characters in colorful , action-packed fantasy-adventures ( generally targeting younger audiences ) .
However , sometime around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production houses like Studio Ghibli began to find international success with more eclectic , character-driven fare .
One particularly transcendent example is writer-director Isao Takahata 's 1988 drama , Grave of the Fireflies .
While it is animated , and its protagonists are children , it is not necessarily a children 's film ; its unflinching approach and anti-war subtext puts it in a league with Roberto Rossellini 's Germany Year Zero and Andrei Tarkovsky 's Ivan 's Childhood .
The story ( based on Akiyuki Nosaka 's novel ) takes place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travails of a teenage boy named Seita ( voiced by Tsutomo Tatsumi ) and his little sister Setsuko ( voiced by Ayano Shiraishi ) , who are orphaned when their mother perishes during an Allied firebombing raid .
After brief lodgings with a less-than-hospitable aunt , the siblings have to fend for themselves .
Do not expect a Hollywood ending ( I would n't recommend showing this to children under 12 ) .
One commonality between Grave of the Fireflies and the aforementioned Rossellini film that begs reflection is the fact that Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WW2 .
An obvious commonality , but precisely my point : The pain and suffering of innocents caught in the crossfire does n't know from borders or ideology .
Son of Babylon - This heartbreaking Iraqi drama is set in 2003 , just weeks after the fall of Saddam .
It follows the arduous journey of a Kurdish boy named Ahmed ( Yasser Talib ) and his grandmother ( Shazda Hussein ) as they head for the last known location of Ahmed ’ s father , who disappeared during the first Gulf War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-apocalyptic landscapes of Iraq ’ s bomb-cratered desert , a portrait emerges of a people struggling to keep mind and soul together , and to make sense of the horror and suffering precipitated by two wars and a harsh dictatorship .
Director Mohamed Al Daradji and co-screenwriter Jennifer Norridge deliver something conspicuously absent in the Iraq War ( s ) movies from Western directors in recent years-an honest and humanistic evaluation of the everyday people who inevitably get caught in the middle of such armed conflicts-not just in Iraq , but in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alludes to the regional and international politics involved , the narrative is constructed in such a way that at the end of day , whether Ahmed ’ s father was killed by American bomb sorties or Saddam gassing his own people is moot .
That message is distilled in a small , compassionate gesture and a single line of dialogue .
An Arabic-speaking woman , also searching for a missing loved one at a mass gravesite sets her own suffering aside to lay a comforting hand on the lamenting grandmother ’ s shoulder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t speak Kurdish , '' she says , `` ... but I can feel this woman ’ s pain and sadness.
” One thing I can say ( aside that this emotionally shattering film should be required viewing for heads of state , commanders-in-chief , generals , or anyone else wielding the power to wage war ) …I don ’ t speak Kurdish , either .
Testament - Originally a PBS American Playhouse presentation , this film was released to theatres and garnered a well-deserved Best Actress nomination for Jane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Director Lynne Littman takes a low key , deliberately paced approach , but pulls no punches .
Alexander , her husband ( William DeVane ) and three kids live in sleepy Hamlin , California , where the afternoon cartoons are interrupted by a news flash that a number of nuclear explosions have occurred in New York .
Then there is a flash of a whole different kind when nearby San Francisco ( where DeVane has gone on a business trip ) receives a direct strike .
There is no exposition on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; a wise decision by the filmmakers because it helps us zero in on the essential humanistic message of the film .
More reviews at -- - Dennis Hartley All of the post-nuke horrors ensue , but they are presented sans the histrionics and melodrama that informs many entries in the genre .
The fact that the nightmarish scenario unfolds so deliberately , and amidst such everyday suburban banality , is what makes it all so frighteningly believable and difficult to shake off .
As the children ( and adults ) of Hamlin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sickness and steadily “ disappear ” , like the children of the ‘ fairy tale ’ Hamlin , you are left haunted by the final line of the school production of “ The Pied Piper ” glimpsed earlier in the film… “ Your children are not dead .
They will return when the world deserves them.
” More reviews at Den Of Cinema

All of the post-nuke horrors ensue, but they are presented sans the histrionics and melodrama that informs many entries in the genre. The fact that the nightmarish scenario unfolds so deliberately, and amidst such everyday suburban banality, is what makes it all so frighteningly believable and difficult to shake off. As the children (and adults) of Hamlin succumb to the inevitable scourge of radiation sickness and steadily “disappear”, like the children of the ‘fairy tale’ Hamlin, you are left haunted by the final line of the school production of “The Pied Piper” glimpsed earlier in the film…“Your children are not dead. They will return when the world deserves them.”More reviews at Den Of Cinema


hullabalooblog--2020-01-04--So that blurry TV address wasn't just me

So that blurry TV address was n't just me I thought either my cable or my eyes were going but Brian Stelter 's newsletter explains why Trump 's news conference was all blurry yesterday : I thought either my cable or my eyes were going but Brian Stelter 's newsletter explains why Trump 's news conference was all blurry yesterday : Sometimes the little details tell you a lot about the big thing .
Consider these two details about the U.S. persuasion campaign after Thursday 's drone strike took out the second most powerful leader of Iran .
First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing of Qasem Soleimani botched the name of the organization he led .
The original statement called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps the `` Iranian '' Corps .
Obama-era State Dept official Wendy Sherman said this was a `` small but telling point . ''
Second , Trump 's afternoon televised address about the airstrike .
It was hastily arranged , nearly 24 hours after the attack took place .
The speech was fully scripted , so it obviously took time to write and set up .
But the press pool traveling with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of time .
In fact , the reporters and technicians were already at the airport , ready to head to Trump 's rally at an evangelical church in Miami .
Then they were called back to Mar-a-Lago .
Many viewers noticed that the live shot of Trump 's address -- carried by all the major networks -- was blurry and choppy at times , and that 's because the crews had so little time to set up the transmission .
It would have been in the White House 's interest to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise questions about the big-picture strategy that 's unfolding ...
Yes it does .
This is not a professionally run administration .
We know they are political amateurs , but I think I expected their show business chops to be little bit better .
They literally ca n't do anything right .
.

I thought either my cable or my eyes were going but Brian Stelter's newsletter explains why Trump's news conference was all blurry yesterday:


hullabalooblog--2020-01-04--Why did he do it? Please. It's obvious.

Why did he do it? Please. It's obvious.

Why did he do it Part II .
Please .
It 's obvious .
The twitter thread by Rukmini Callimachi that Tom highlights below is worth laying out for posterity : I ’ ve had a chance to check in with sources , including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani .
Here is what I ’ ve learned .
According to them , the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is “ razor thin ” .
In fact the evidence pointing to that came as three discrete facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showing Suleimani was in Syria , Lebanon & Iraq to meet with Shia proxies known to have an offensive position to the US .
( As one source said that ’ s just “ business as usual ” for Suleimani ) More intriguing was b ) information indicating Suleimani sought the Supreme Leader ’ s approval for an operation .
He was told to come to Tehran for consultation and further guidance , suggesting the operation was a big deal - but again this could be anything .
And finally , a ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context of c ) Iran ’ s increasingly bellicose position towards American interests in Iraq , including the attack that killed a U.S. contractor and the recent protest outside the American embassy .
But as one source put it a ) + b ) + c ) is hardly evidence of an imminent attack on American interests that could kill hundreds , as the White House has since claimed .
The official describes the reading of the intelligence as an illogical leap .
One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27 , Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate .
Killing Suleimani was the “ far out option ” Trump chose a more moderate option which involved the Dec. 29 strikes on the positions of an Iranian-backed militia .
Then came the protest at the gates of the US embassy in Baghdad : It was after the embassy protests that the president , according to one US official , chose the Suleimani option , but the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American intelligence did not know his precise whereabouts .
They scrambled to locate him , says the official .
According to the official , the strike on Suleimani was pulled together so quickly that initially the US was not sure PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was in the convoy .
He was also killed and is also viewed as an Iranian proxy Since the strike , Iran has convened its national security chiefs .
Chatter intercepted by American intelligence indicates they ’ re considering a range of options .
Cyberattacks , attacks on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outposts have all been cited so far .
But among the “ menu options ” that I had not heard before were : ( 1 ) kidnapping and execution of American citizens .
( This might explain why the State Department has ordered the evacuation of all US citizens in Iraq , not just government and embassy employees ) .
Another is attacks on American diplomatic and military outposts not just in Iraq , Lebanon and Syria , but as far afield as UAE and Bahrain .
The official I spoke to was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq , some of whom are co-located with Shia militias How does this impact the war against ISIS ?
I turned to @ Mikeknightsiraq for insight .
He ’ s studied Iraq since the 1990s .
What he told me is that months before the strike that killed Suleimani , the tensions with Iran had already degraded America ’ s ability to fight ISIS in Iraq : In 2019 , America has been denied airspace and access to operations in Iraq to go after ISIS at the behest of Iran-backed groups .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communicating with Sunni tribes .
These are important setbacks that have already weakened the US ’ posture in Iraq “ It ’ s all been downhill , ” @ Mikeknightsiraq told me , in terms of America ’ s access to the ISIS battlespace in recent months due to Iranian pressure on Iraqi officials .
One upshot ?
US special operations forces have been on the offensive in Diyala , Nineveh and Kirkuk provinces A likely outcome of the recent strike is that small , out-of-the-way outposts for special operations forces will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Fighting ISIS is no longer the priority if the outer wall of the US embassy is being attacked .
Before I go back to the pool let me just say the obvious : No one ’ s trying to downplay Suleimani ’ s crimes .
The question is why now ?
His whereabouts have been known before .
His resume of killing-by-proxy is not a secret .
Hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga .
I 'll just add a tweet of my own to that last comment : So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coincidence Trump decided to kill Suleimani when he 's being impeached ?
Seriously ?
Even he admits the guy could have been taken out for years .
But he decided to do it now .
In the middle of his impeachment .
# wagthedogneverfails — digby ( @ digby56 ) January 4 , 2020 .

More intriguing was b) information indicating Suleimani sought the Supreme Leader’s approval for an operation. He was told to come to Tehran for consultation and further guidance, suggesting the operation was a big deal - but again this could be anything.
And finally, a) and b) were read in the context of c) Iran’s increasingly bellicose position towards American interests in Iraq, including the attack that killed a U.S. contractor and the recent protest outside the American embassy.
But as one source put it a) + b) + c) is hardly evidence of an imminent attack on American interests that could kill hundreds, as the White House has since claimed. The official describes the reading of the intelligence as an illogical leap.
One official described the planning for the strike as chaotic. The official says that following the attack on an Iraqi base which killed an American contractor circa Dec. 27, Trump was presented a menu of options for how to retaliate. Killing Suleimani was the “far out option”
Trump chose a more moderate option which involved the Dec. 29 strikes on the positions of an Iranian-backed militia. Then came the protest at the gates of the US embassy in Baghdad:
It was after the embassy protests that the president, according to one US official, chose the Suleimani option, but the problem at that point in time is that American intelligence did not know his precise whereabouts. They scrambled to locate him, says the official.
According to the official, the strike on Suleimani was pulled together so quickly that initially the US was not sure PMF leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was in the convoy. He was also killed and is also viewed as an Iranian proxy
Since the strike, Iran has convened its national security chiefs. Chatter intercepted by American intelligence indicates they’re considering a range of options. Cyberattacks, attacks on oil facilities and American personnel and diplomatic outposts have all been cited so far.
But among the “menu options” that I had not heard before were: (1) kidnapping and execution of American citizens. (This might explain why the State Department has ordered the evacuation of all US citizens in Iraq, not just government and embassy employees).
Another is attacks on American diplomatic and military outposts not just in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, but as far afield as UAE and Bahrain. The official I spoke to was particularly concerned for American troops stationed in Iraq, some of whom are co-located with Shia militias
How does this impact the war against ISIS? I turned to
@Mikeknightsiraq for insight. He’s studied Iraq since the 1990s. What he told me is that months before the strike that killed Suleimani, the tensions with Iran had already degraded America’s ability to fight ISIS in Iraq:
In 2019, America has been denied airspace and access to operations in Iraq to go after ISIS at the behest of Iran-backed groups. The US has also been told to stop communicating with Sunni tribes. These are important setbacks that have already weakened the US’ posture in Iraq
“It’s all been downhill,” @Mikeknightsiraq told me, in terms of America’s access to the ISIS battlespace in recent months due to Iranian pressure on Iraqi officials. One upshot? US special operations forces have been on the offensive in Diyala, Nineveh and Kirkuk provinces
A likely outcome of the recent strike is that small, out-of-the-way outposts for special operations forces will be deemed too vulnerable and will be eliminated. Fighting ISIS is no longer the priority if the outer wall of the US embassy is being attacked.
Before I go back to the pool let me just say the obvious: No one’s trying to downplay Suleimani’s crimes. The question is why now? His whereabouts have been known before. His resume of killing-by-proxy is not a secret. Hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga.


hullabalooblog--2020-01-04--Pod people by @BloggersRUs

Pod people by @BloggersRUs

Still image from Invasion of the Body Snatchers ( 1978 ) .
`` Starve a cold , feed a cold ? ''
says the bleary cold sufferer misremembering the old adage .
Our acting president 's explanation for his assassination-by-drone of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani brought back dialogue from an old TV commercial .
`` We took action last night to stop a war , we did not take action to start a war , '' Donald Trump told reporters on Friday .
Stop a war , feed a war ?
It does n't make sense .
In the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Spokesmen at the State Department were not in a mood to even try .
`` Officials gave differing and incomplete accounts of the intelligence they said prompted Trump to act , '' reports the Washington Post .
( I first read that as `` dithering . ''
) `` Soleimani was planning imminent attacks against American diplomats and our armed forces members in Iraq , Lebanon , Syria , and in the region , '' State Department officials said in a press briefing .
But we went down this road in 2003 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials to show their work .
What evidence did they have for that statement ?
Officials simply got argumentative : SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE : No , no .
I ’ m saying there ’ s been so many presidential terms — QUESTION : Well — SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE : — in between then and now .
It ’ s just – it ’ s a failed analogy .
QUESTION : I ’ m not asking you the analogy .
It ’ s – the question is — SENIOR STATE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the analogy .
QUESTION : — the administration – the administration then said “ believe us , ” so why should we now believe you when you say “ believe us ” ?
What was this intelligence ?
Can you be a bit more specific ?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE : You ’ re saying because another administration made one claim , why should we believe in a different administration this claim ?
It just – it doesn ’ t make any sense .
It ’ s entirely separate .
QUESTION : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — MODERATOR : Ah , ah , ah , that ’ s not what we ’ re doing today .
Matt , you can finish .
But wo n't the Iranians retaliate ?
a reporter asked .
Iranians had already escalated by attacking our embassy , the official replied , saying , `` And so this was a – this was a defensive action , but it is also to de-escalate , because Qasem Soleimani was escalating . ''
QUESTION : So you do expect them to retaliate or not ?
SENIOR STATE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these questions it ’ s like you ’ re describing Belgium for the last 40 years .
It ’ s the Iranian regime .
We ’ ve got 40 years of acts of war that this regime has committed against countries in five continents .
QUESTION : So you expect additional acts of war on their part ?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE : No , I don ’ t .
QUESTION : Well , why don ’ t you ?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE : I ’ m just saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invite more aggression .
QUESTION : Why don ’ t you ?
Why do you think they will be deterred ?
When you said , “ I don ’ t , ” why don ’ t you expect retaliation ?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE : Because we ’ re speaking in a language the regime understands .
`` This entire transcript is a nightmare , '' tweeted Adam Mount , Director of the Defense Posture Project of the Federation of American Scientists .
`` Deluded soundbites substitute for reason and rationality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indication here these officials have thought seriously about the potential consequences of the action . ''
Theirs is not to reason why .
Or to reason at all .
Elsewhere , the Trump cult gathered to anoint him with the laying on of hands and evangelical vibrato .
Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business channel slathered on the praise even thicker .
Lou Dobbs says Trump has already set a standard `` for presidents that most mortals wo n't be able to meet , '' saying he `` out-works them , he out-thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's bright , his judgment is second to none '' pic.twitter.com/Mi2iJbLnS4 — Jason Campbell ( @ JasonSCampbell ) January 4 , 2020 This is all pretty disorienting .
It 's not as if these people were n't already acting like beings from another planet .
It 's just that , as in `` Body Snatchers , '' it seems increasingly difficult to know if the person in front of you went to sleep next to a pod .
That 's only apparent , of course .
The result of too much time on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the cult 's size is self-limited .
Trump 's base has held steady for years .
But even as he works to shore up their support , there are signs he 's losing ground there .
Watch that ( outer ) space .
Update : A fresh thread on possible Soleimani fallout from the NYT 's Rukmini Callimachi .

Pod people
by Tom Sullivan
Still image from Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).
"Starve a cold, feed a cold?" says the bleary cold sufferer misremembering the old adage.
Our acting president's explanation for his assassination-by-drone of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani brought back dialogue from an old TV commercial.
"We took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war," Donald Trump told reporters on Friday.
Stop a war, feed a war?
It doesn't make sense. In the Trump administration, nothing has to make sense. Spokesmen at the State Department were not in a mood to even try.
"Officials gave differing and incomplete accounts of the intelligence they said prompted Trump to act," reports the Washington Post. (I first read that as "dithering.")
"Soleimani was planning imminent attacks against American diplomats and our armed forces members in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and in the region," State Department officials said in a press briefing.
But we went down this road in 2003, a reporter observed, asking administration officials to show their work. What evidence did they have for that statement? Officials simply got argumentative:
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, no. I’m saying there’s been so many presidential terms —
QUESTION: Well —
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: — in between then and now. It’s just – it’s a failed analogy.
QUESTION: I’m not asking you the analogy. It’s – the question is —
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: You just made the analogy.
QUESTION: — the administration – the administration then said “believe us,” so why should we now believe you when you say “believe us”? What was this intelligence? Can you be a bit more specific?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: You’re saying because another administration made one claim, why should we believe in a different administration this claim? It just – it doesn’t make any sense. It’s entirely separate.
QUESTION: Let’s limit it to this —
MODERATOR: Ah, ah, ah, that’s not what we’re doing today. Matt, you can finish.
QUESTION: So you do expect them to retaliate or not?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: When I hear these questions it’s like you’re describing Belgium for the last 40 years. It’s the Iranian regime. We’ve got 40 years of acts of war that this regime has committed against countries in five continents.
QUESTION: So you expect additional acts of war on their part?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: No, I don’t.
QUESTION: Well, why don’t you?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I’m just saying that weakness invites more aggression. Timidity will invite more aggression.
QUESTION: Why don’t you? Why do you think they will be deterred? When you said, “I don’t,” why don’t you expect retaliation?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Because we’re speaking in a language the regime understands.


hullabalooblog--2020-01-07--Why Didn't @FaceTheNation producer @hagerhoo tell viewers Gen. Petraeus works for @KKR_Co, which has

Why Didn't @FaceTheNation producer @hagerhoo tell viewers Gen. Petraeus works for @KKR_Co, which has major defense investments? (NYSE: KKR) @spockosbrain

It 's not like who Petraeus works for is hard to find .
KKR is proud he works for them @ @ @ @ @ want his title and employer in the chyron at Face The Nation ?

It's not like who Petraeus works for is hard to find. KKR is proud he works for them , why don't they want his title and employer in the chyron at Face The Nation?


hullabalooblog--2020-01-07--Neither deliberative nor decisive

Neither deliberative nor decisive

Neither deliberative nor decisive that whether Trump comes out politically on top in this national security crisis depends upon whether people see what he did as impulsive or decisive .
He points out that `` decisive '' vs `` deliberative '' has long been the way president of the two are described with Reagan and the Bushes portraying themselves as decisive while the Democrats like Carter , Clinton and Obama see themselves as deliberative .
How you value those two things probably governs for whom you prefer to vote .
Ron Brownstein says that whether Trump comes out politically on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon whether people see what he did as impulsive or decisive .
He points out that `` decisive '' vs `` deliberative '' has long been the way president of the two are described with Reagan and the Bushes portraying themselves as decisive while the Democrats like Carter , Clinton and Obama see themselves as deliberative .
How you value those two things probably governs for whom you prefer to vote .
Of course , this is a pretty silly distinction but I think Brownstein is right that it 's illustrative of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact is that none of those previous presidents of either party were what you would call impulsive , at least not in the Trumpian sense .
Nobody would try to make he case that Trump is deliberative .
Whether people come to see Trump 's clear impulsivity as being `` decisive '' seems to depend on what happens now : These assessments have `` pluses and minuses for both parties , '' Rosner says .
`` Whether it is a plus or a minus tends to depend heavily , fundamentally , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
National security is the most unideological issue in the realm of public affairs .
The only ideological [ impulse ] the public has is they like things that work . ''
For that reason , Feaver thinks Trump is in a more exposed political position than his Democratic critics over Soleimani 's death .
Most Democrats , he notes , have not definitively said they would have rejected the strike ; they have only accused Trump of approving it without fully considering the potential costs .
That leaves them enormous flexibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if events warrant .
While the attack has not yet prompted retaliatory violence from Iran or its proxies , it has already produced diplomatic disruption , including While the attack has not yet prompted retaliatory violence from Iran or its proxies , it has already produced diplomatic disruption , including Iran 's announcement that it was withdrawing further from its international agreement to limit its nuclear program , and the vote by Iraq 's Parliament to demand the withdrawal of American troops from the country .
Trump has responded with counter-threats to bomb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international law , if the country strikes American interests and to impose sanctions on Iraq if it evicts US forces .
Though not yet producing military confrontation , this immediate cycle of action and response underscores how quickly tensions can escalate beyond the complete control of either side .
He adds , `` the Democrats have an easier play here .
The 'decisiveness ' of the President only wins politically if there are no unintended consequences , and I do n't even think the Trump team believes that they are going to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There will be blowback , and whatever the blowback is will take the bloom off this rose . ''
His rose is already wilted and diseased .
He 's clearly wagging the dog and being egged on by a handful of fanatics who 've been wanting a war with Iran for decades .
He gave the go-ahead at a moment of high personal stress , which we could all see right there on his twitter feed , and now we 're stuck with the consequences .
It was neither deliberative nor decisive @ @

Neither deliberative nor decisive
Ron Brownstein says that whether Trump comes out politically on top in this national security crisis depends upon whether people see what he did as impulsive or decisive. He points out that "decisive" vs "deliberative" has long been the way president of the two are described with Reagan and the Bushes portraying themselves as decisive while the Democrats like Carter, Clinton and Obama see themselves as deliberative. How you value those two things probably governs for whom you prefer to vote.
Of course, this is a pretty silly distinction but I think Brownstein is right that it's illustrative of how people see the two parties. But the fact is that none of those previous presidents of either party were what you would call impulsive, at least not in the Trumpian sense.
Nobody would try to make he case that Trump is deliberative. Whether people come to see Trump's clear impulsivity as being "decisive" seems to depend on what happens now:


hullabalooblog--2020-01-07--"Use the right words or you are a terrorist-lover!" (Just don't use the word "assassination")

`` Use the right words or you are a terrorist-lover ! ''
( Just do n't use the word `` assassination '' ) Check out Meghan McCain turning herself into Lindsey Graham before out eyes : On Monday morning , during The View ’ s first new show of 2020 , Meghan McCain defended President Donald Trump ’ s targeted killing of top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani .
“ For me , when a big , bad terrorist gets blown up , I ’ m happy about it , ” she said .
The fatuous nonsense spewing out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make you sick : “ You issued a statement calling Soleimani a murderer .
Later , you issued a second statement saying that he was ‘ an assassination of a senior foreign military official.
’ Now , this is a man who is obviously responsible for hundreds of American troops ’ deaths , carnage that we can ’ t even imagine ...
I don ’ t understand the flip-flop .
I don ’ t understand why it was so hard to call him a terrorist , and I would just like you to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're having a tantrum when anyone says the assassination of Suleimani is an assassination .
You can see in the video above that Warren handled that idiocy with dispatch .
But I want to give a big shout-out to Chris Cillizza for spreading this bullshit yesterday .
Warren , Jan 3 : U.S. `` assassinated '' Soleimani Warren , Jan. 5 : Soleimani is `` a government official , a high-ranking military official '' Warren , Jan 2 : Soleimani is a `` murderer '' Warren , Jan 3 : U.S. `` assassinated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is `` a government official , a high-ranking military official '' https : //t.co/Bz8Squds0c — Chris Cillizza ( @ CillizzaCNN ) January 6 , 2020 Warren 's spokesperson tweeted back : “ I rarely tweet about stuff like this but I can ’ t hold back here .
Chris , this is embarrassing .
Every statement is true & consistent .
The reason you were able to cherry-pick her many comments is b/c she ’ s the only candidate who ’ s done multiple interviews & media avails about it.
” There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Jesus Christ , ESL courses are available on line .
— Charles P. Pierce ( @ CharlesPPierce ) January 6 , 2020 cilizza , upon walking outside at the end of the day and being unable to find the sun , which he knows he saw mere hours ago : pic.twitter.com/EuxJdOLgJP — Ashley Feinberg ( @ ashleyfeinberg ) January 6 , 2020 He says his name is `` Chris Cillizza '' but his handle is `` CillizzaCNN , '' how do you explain the contradiction ?
?
!
It ca n't be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MaxKennerly ) January 6 , 2020 There were many , many more .
Thankfully .
Maybe he 'll stop .
Cillizza was one of the most responsible for dogging Hillary Clinton with the email story day in and day out in 2016 .
One day when I asked him how many times he was going to re-tweet one particularly snotty tweet on the subject ( he 'd done it at least four times in one day ) he blocked me .
He was one of the very worst offenders hammering the email flap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not long after on CNN .
Chris Hayes said this about the 2016 campaign in a recent Columbia Journalism Review article : To me , the biggest sin of 2016 was proportionality .
Particularly vis-a-vis Hillary Clinton and the email story , and then the Wikileaks story .
When you look at the word cloud of what people heard from the news , there ’ s one huge word in the middle and that ’ s ( Hillary Clinton ’ s ) emails .
There ’ s no justification whatsoever for the proportion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And sometimes I think people want to defend the coverage by using the strawman of , it was news .
Yeah , it was news .
It was a news story when it turned out Ivanka Trump was using unsecured communications at the White House , it was a news story when it turned out Nikki Haley was using unsecured communications as UN Ambassador , in some senses .
The president uses unsecured communications .
Those have all been news stories .
Then everyone moves on to something else because it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The proportionality is one of the key challenges here .
Chris Cillizza always finds something snotty like this to use as a punch line to entertain his fellow journalists and it 's one of the reasons we have Donald Trump today .
.

Warren, Jan 2: Soleimani is a "murderer"Warren, Jan 3: U.S. "assassinated" SoleimaniWarren, Jan. 5: Soleimani is "a government official, a high-ranking military official" https://t.co/Bz8Squds0c
cilizza, upon walking outside at the end of the day and being unable to find the sun, which he knows he saw mere hours ago: pic.twitter.com/EuxJdOLgJP
He says his name is "Chris Cillizza" but his handle is "CillizzaCNN," how do you explain the contradiction??! It can't be both!


hullabalooblog--2020-01-07--Maybe Trump has done us a little favor?

Maybe Trump has done us a little favor?

Maybe Trump has done us a little favor ?
by digby As I watch the media be more skeptical about the Iran escalation than I 've ever seen them in my life when it comes to military action , I 'm struck by the idea that Trump may have done us a big favor .
Skepticism over the rationales the government uses for war has usually been in short supply at times like these so perhaps the fact that Trump is an inveterate liar -- - and his government is too -- - has finally opened their eyes to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems in these situations .
If we get through this , the key will be to hold them to this when someone other than Trump is doing it .
Because he certainly is not the first .
He and his men are just so crude and lacking in credibility that it 's impossible not to notice .
Recall : ... [ I ] t pays to remember that the vaunted `` realism '' of George Bush Sr led to a war that 's still going on today .
He 's the guy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he did it in ways that his decidedly unrealistic son took to heart .
The propaganda , for instance Take the Kuwaiti babies story .
Its origins go back to the first world war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets .
Dusted off and updated for the Gulf war , this version had Iraqi soldiers bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital , finding the premature babies ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the incubators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The story , improbable from the start , was first reported by the Daily Telegraph in London on September 5 1990 .
But the story lacked the human element ; it was an unverified report , there were no pictures for television and no interviews with mothers grieving over dead babies .
That was soon rectified .
An organisation calling itself Citizens for a Free Kuwait ( financed by the Kuwaiti government in exile ) had signed a $ 10m contract with the giant American public relations company , Hill & Knowlton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oust Iraq from Kuwait .
The Human Rights Caucus of the US Congress was meeting in October and Hill & Knowlton arranged for a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl to tell the babies ' story before the congressmen .
She did it brilliantly , choking with tears at the right moment , her voice breaking as she struggled to continue .
The congressional committee knew her only as `` Nayirah '' and the television segment of her testimony showed anger and resolution on the faces of the congressmen listening to her .
President Bush referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next five weeks as an example of the evil of Saddam 's regime .
In the Senate debate whether to approve military action to force Saddam out of Kuwait , seven senators specifically mentioned the incubator babies atrocity and the final margin in favour of war was just five votes .
John R Macarthur 's study of propaganda in the war says that the babies atrocity was a definitive moment in the campaign to prepare the American public for the need to go to war .
It was not until nearly two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story was a fabrication and a myth , and Nayirah , the teenage Kuwaiti girl , coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance before the Congressional Committee , was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States .
By the time Macarthur revealed this , the war was won and over and it did not matter any more .
Trump is so bad at all this that it 's impossible to ignore .
But he is n't the first , not by a long shot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this that it 's impossible to ignore .
But he is n't the first , not by a long shot .

...[I]t pays to remember that the vaunted "realism" of George Bush Sr led to a war that's still going on today. He's the guy who got us caught up in Iraq and he did it in ways that his decidedly unrealistic son took to heart. The propaganda, for instance
Take the Kuwaiti babies story. Its origins go back to the first world war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Dusted off and updated for the Gulf war, this version had Iraqi soldiers bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital, finding the premature babies ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the incubators could be sent back to Iraq.
The story, improbable from the start, was first reported by the Daily Telegraph in London on September 5 1990. But the story lacked the human element; it was an unverified report, there were no pictures for television and no interviews with mothers grieving over dead babies.
That was soon rectified. An organisation calling itself Citizens for a Free Kuwait (financed by the Kuwaiti government in exile) had signed a $10m contract with the giant American public relations company, Hill & Knowlton, to campaign for American military intervention to oust Iraq from Kuwait.
The Human Rights Caucus of the US Congress was meeting in October and Hill & Knowlton arranged for a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl to tell the babies' story before the congressmen. She did it brilliantly, choking with tears at the right moment, her voice breaking as she struggled to continue. The congressional committee knew her only as "Nayirah" and the television segment of her testimony showed anger and resolution on the faces of the congressmen listening to her. President Bush referred to the story six times in the next five weeks as an example of the evil of Saddam's regime.
In the Senate debate whether to approve military action to force Saddam out of Kuwait, seven senators specifically mentioned the incubator babies atrocity and the final margin in favour of war was just five votes. John R Macarthur's study of propaganda in the war says that the babies atrocity was a definitive moment in the campaign to prepare the American public for the need to go to war.
It was not until nearly two years later that the truth emerged. The story was a fabrication and a myth, and Nayirah, the teenage Kuwaiti girl, coached and rehearsed by Hill & Knowlton for her appearance before the Congressional Committee, was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. By the time Macarthur revealed this, the war was won and over and it did not matter any more.


hullabalooblog--2020-01-08--Who needs Bolton when you have Pompeo?

Who needs Bolton when you have Pompeo?

Who needs Bolton when you have Pompeo ?
Ever since President Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani last Friday night , everyone in the world has been holding their breath wondering what would come next .
There were tweets and public statements about retaliation , with the president saying he would target Iranian cultural sites , while the Iranians were promising they would not engage in the asymmetric responses everyone assumed they were planning .
Trump threatened to hit 52 targets — one for every hostage taken at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , “ Those who refer to the number 52 should also remember the number 290 , '' a reference to the 290 people killed when the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet in 1988 .
On Tuesday night the Iranian response came in the form of cruise missiles aimed at two Iraqi airbases that house U.S. troops .
At this point , there are no reported casualties ( although Iranian sources disagree ) .
This appears to be a somewhat restrained response to the latest escalation by the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran had “ concluded ” its retaliation and did “ not seek escalation or war . ''
There was no immediate word from the White House other than a bewildering Trump tweet insisting that `` all is well . ''
The president 's advisers on Fox News had some ideas about what should come next : Hannity proposes bombing Iran 's `` three major '' refineries to create `` major poverty for the people of Iran '' , followed by arming Iranians who want regime change pic.twitter.com/CDdJgnVuGy — Brendan Karet 🚮 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may ignore them and just declare victory .
But most experts expect that Iran will not be content with this limited response that causes no pain for the U.S. , considering the importance of the man who was killed .
Frankly , it 's not reasonable to believe that the U.S. is going to say it 's even-steven either , at least not as long as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has the president 's ear .
All the reporting about how the decision was made says this debacle was his baby .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton in the administration somewhat obscured Pompeo 's Iran obsession .
As with our hopes that Attorney General William Barr would be a predictable Republican establishment institutionalist , there was some thought that Pompeo 's closeness with the president meant that he would manage his impulsivity and chaotic foreign policy .
What appears to have happened is that , like Barr , Pompeo is an ideological extremist who has figured out how to appease and flatter the president into helping him achieve his own goals .
We should have known .
Pompeo 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , graduating first in his class at West Point and later going to Harvard Law and editing the law review , which are admirable achievements .
It 's true that he did five years in the military , attaining the rank of captain , but he never saw combat or achieved any particular glory .
He was with the CIA for a couple of years and did some time at a D.C. law firm .
But Pompeo left all that behind more than 20 years ago to go to Kansas and become an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite being bankrolled by the Koch brothers .
He went into politics and eventually won a congressional seat in the 2010 Tea Party wave and made a name for himself haranguing Hillary Clinton over Benghazi and agitating for war with Iran .
It 's not a terrible résumé , but it 's pretty thin for a CIA director or secretary of state , the two huge jobs Pompeo has held in the Trump administration .
But the man reportedly has a way with Trump and they hit it off despite some differences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notably on Russia .
According to this excellent New Yorker profile of Pompeo by Susan Glasser , they had a strong meeting of the minds on Iran .
As CIA director , Pompeo reportedly treated the intelligence on Iran the same way Trump treats the intelligence on Russia .
He refused to accept it .
The New York Times reported that one of Pompeo 's first acts at CIA was to create a `` a special center to deal with Iran , appointing as its head Michael D ’ Andrea , a veteran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Dark Prince , who oversaw the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the drone strike campaign in the Middle East and Central Asia . ''
Pompeo was instrumental in convincing the president to withdraw from the nuclear deal and has been the primary proponent of the administration 's `` maximum pressure '' campaign of sanctions and isolation .
He pushed Trump to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps , which Soleimani commanded , a terrorist organization .
In his diplomatic role at the State Department , Pompeo has pursued close relationships with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arab Emirates , which the Times points out are `` enemies of Iran that sometimes have agendas that run counter to American interests . ''
With a secretary of state like that , who needs John Bolton ?
Although he came in with the Tea Party wave , Pompeo has always had more of a hard-right , neoconservative philosophy than some of the libertarian types in that class .
And the hard-liners have believed that `` real men want to go to Tehran '' for a long time .
Iran has certainly perpetrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have so many other actors and countries in the region .
But it seems to have a particular hold on the right-wing imagination .
Maybe it 's because so many hardened conservatives still feel that Iran humiliated the U.S. back in 1979 or maybe it 's because of their allegiance to Israel , which Iran considers a mortal enemy .
Pompeo is an evangelical Christian as well , who has made a great show of his religious fervor all over the globe .
One New York Times feature on him was headlined `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy , '' so maybe he has even bigger ambitions .
Whatever the case , Pompeo is supposed to be the country 's top diplomat , so openly pushing for war makes him impotent when it comes to doing the job he 's supposed to do .
But of course this is the Trump administration , and none of the usual rules apply .
Right now , we have an impulsive president in the middle of an impeachment being goaded into war by Fox News and an extremist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there 's nothing to worry about .
This is my Salon column reprinted with permission .

Hannity proposes bombing Iran's "three major" refineries to create "major poverty for the people of Iran", followed by arming Iranians who want regime change pic.twitter.com/CDdJgnVuGy


hullabalooblog--2020-01-08--Take my word he's a madman, don't you know by @BloggersRUs

Take my word he 's a madman , do n't you know Unverified cell phone video from Iran 's Fars news of missiles landing on the al-Asad air base in Iraq .
As of this writing , it is still unclear if the retaliatory barrage of missile Iranians launched last night at U.S. bases in Iraq resulted in casualties .
The Guardian reports Adil Abdul-Mahdi , Iraq 's prime minister , had warning of the strikes from Tehran and passed on that warning to U.S. and Iraqi troops .
He was advised the Iranians ' retaliation for Trump 's assassination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited .
The Guardian 's Michael Safi reports that Iran 's warning adds `` to sense this morning ’ s attacks were a piece of elaborate theatre . ''
To be continued “ I know more about ISIS than the generals do , believe me , ” candidate Donald Trump bragged in November 2015 .
`` [ T ] hey do n't know much , because they 're not winning , '' he told CBS News in June 2016 .
He knows more about anything than anybody .
Believe me .
Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s New Clothes '' analogy since before Trump took office .
( It 's a fair guess his wealthy parents never read little Donny the Hans Christian Andersen tale . )
Media critics have asked when the press would stop covering the 15,000 Lies Man like a normal president and stop branding his actions unorthodox or chalking up his erratic behavior to a matter of style .
Hillary Clinton warned during the 2016 campaign that Trump is “ temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge , stability and immense responsibility.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons . ''
And here we are in 2020 , missiles flying .
In the wake of the Trumpian drone-slaying of Suleimani , the media offered `` detailed descriptions of the president ’ s decision-making process '' as if there was one , Jamelle Bouie laments in the New York Times .
Bouie has had his fill of attempts `` to turn away from the reality of what he is for fear of what it means , '' adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t shocking .
Trump is not a steady hand .
He ’ s never been one .
Three years in office have neither changed his character nor enhanced his capabilities .
He is as ignorant and incurious as a president as he was as a candidate ( and as a would-be mogul before that ) .
His main goal is self-preservation , and he ’ ll sacrifice anything to achieve it .
His current assault on the authority of Congress — his refusal to have the White House or members of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an attempt to escape responsibility for his own unethical ( and potentially illegal ) actions .
He is self-involved , unethical and unstable — a dangerous combination to have for the commander-in-chief of the world ’ s most powerful military forces , under pressure from impeachment and a re-election campaign .
H.L .
Mencken once observed , “ Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
” Do they have a taste for a Trump-branded war ?

Take my word he's a madman, don't you know
by Tom Sullivan
Unverified cell phone video from Iran's Fars news of missiles landing on the al-Asad air base in Iraq.
As of this writing, it is still unclear if the retaliatory barrage of missile Iranians launched last night at U.S. bases in Iraq resulted in casualties. The Guardian reports Adil Abdul-Mahdi, Iraq's prime minister, had warning of the strikes from Tehran and passed on that warning to U.S. and Iraqi troops. He was advised the Iranians' retaliation for Trump's assassination of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani would be limited. The Guardian's Michael Safi reports that Iran's warning adds "to sense this morning’s attacks were a piece of elaborate theatre."
To be continued
“I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me,” candidate Donald Trump bragged in November 2015. "[T]hey don't know much, because they're not winning," he told CBS News in June 2016. He knows more about anything than anybody. Believe me.
Trump's critics have used "The Emperor’s New Clothes" analogy since before Trump took office. (It's a fair guess his wealthy parents never read little Donny the Hans Christian Andersen tale.) Media critics have asked when the press would stop covering the 15,000 Lies Man like a normal president and stop branding his actions unorthodox or chalking up his erratic behavior to a matter of style.
Hillary Clinton warned during the 2016 campaign that Trump is “temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.” She warned, "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." And here we are in 2020, missiles flying.
In the wake of the Trumpian drone-slaying of Suleimani, the media offered "detailed descriptions of the president’s decision-making process" as if there was one, Jamelle Bouie laments in the New York Times. Bouie has had his fill of attempts "to turn away from the reality of what he is for fear of what it means," adding:
This is reckless but it isn’t shocking. Trump is not a steady hand. He’s never been one. Three years in office have neither changed his character nor enhanced his capabilities. He is as ignorant and incurious as a president as he was as a candidate (and as a would-be mogul before that). His main goal is self-preservation, and he’ll sacrifice anything to achieve it. His current assault on the authority of Congress — his refusal to have the White House or members of his administration release documents or obey subpoenas — is an attempt to escape responsibility for his own unethical (and potentially illegal) actions. He is self-involved, unethical and unstable — a dangerous combination to have for the commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful military forces, under pressure from impeachment and a re-election campaign.