Iraq snapshot Tuesday, February 17, 2015.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015. Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, the Islamic State stages a mass execution of civilians, Rand Paul is seen to be using Iraq as a campaign issue, Jeb Bush thinks he may be able to seek the GOP presidential nomination and dodge the topic of Iraq, Hillary Clinton remains the example of how you can't run from the topic of Iraq, Senator Barbara Boxer stands up, John Nichols props up Congressional embarrassment Barbara Lee, Marie Harf becomes a topic of ridicule outside the Arab world, and much more.
Akbar Shahid Ahmed (Huffington Post) reports, "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is showing signs of trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials ahead of a likely run for president in 2016, establishing himself as a leader in the debate over an authorization to fight the Islamic State and backing away from previous views that critics called too isolationist."
Yes, Iraq will be an issue in the 2016 US presidential race. It should have been one in 2012 but Mitt Romney, carrying the Republican ticket, was an idiot and the press wasn't interested in truth. As September 2012 closed down, when Tim Arango squeezed into an article on Syria the news that US President Barack Obama had just sent a brigade of Special-Ops into Iraq in the fall of 2012.
See 'journalist' Jill Abramson didn't think the news was important enough for the front page. She didn't think it warranted its own story. She thought the September 2012 revelation was too close to the November 2012 election.
She thought burying a scoop and betraying the paper's own interests were what a journalist did.
Cheap liar Jill is no longer party of the New York Times.
She's sewer garbage. She'll never come back out of the gutter.
Anytime the little liar tries, she'll find the same stiletto heel on top of her head that ensured her precious Will had to give up his dreams.
Here's what Tim Arango got into his New York Times report on Syria:
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
See that was huge.
Unlike Jill Abramson, we didn't bury here. We wrote about it repeatedly because, though I have many faults and sins, being a cheap whore -- one with really bad fashion sense -- is not among my faults or sins.
See Jill wanted to run the paper but, in the end, she ruined the paper by killing one report on the White House after another because more than truth, more than justice, she wanted Barack to have a second term. And that's what turned the family on her, All the documentation on all the stories the paper had that she either downplayed or outright killed.
In the end, her whoring killed her career. She gives speeches now where she pretends she was a brave journalist. And somehow, every time she does, whispers to the press -- magic? -- reveal she is lying yet again and that she was lying back then.
Let her downfall be a lesson to the rest of the press.
Mitt Romney's campaign thought the American people were too stupid to process on Iraq.
They wanted to claim Barack destroyed Iraq by pulling all troops out of Iraq.
They saw that as portraying him as weak.
Okay, if that's your campaign point then what would paint Barack as weaker than tying on reality to your talking point?
"He pulled all the troops out of Iraq and now things are so bad he's secretly sending Special-Ops back in. But he refuses to tell the American people that he did it because he refuses to admit just how much he screwed up."
They could have sold that.
It would have put Barack on the defensive and taken Mitt off (the press was attacking Mitt for his remarks on Benghazi).
But due to stupidity or whatever, the Mitt Romney campaign decided to fight so weakly no one would mistake it for fighting -- or even campaigning.
It's also true that the press didn't give a damn about Iraq. They were bored with the topic. Which is why Tim Arango's revelation, which preceded the presidential debates, was never raised in one of them -- not even by 'fact' obsessed Candy Crowley.
They wanted to play, the poor bored press, so overpaid and so underworked, they wanted to offer breezy, superficial coverage on superficial topics -- that's part of the reason they took sides on Benghazi (the side being 'ask no questions!').
But lazy bastards that they are, they're going to have to acknowledge Iraq in their 2016 'coverage.'
Not because of Rand Paul.
But because it looks like Hillary Clinton's going to be running for the Democratic Party's nomination and Jeb Bush is going to run for the Republican Party's nomination.
Last week, Jeb Bush held a press conference. Philip Rucker (Washington Post) reported that Jeb announced he wouldn't discuss the Iraq War.
And Jeb's supposed to be the smart Bush?
There's CIA Bush -- dogged by all sorts of sexual rumors and predator rumors over the past decades -- and there's crooked Bush who made money despite the failure of Silverado Savings and Loans. Then there's terrorist friendly Marvin Bush and there's Jeb who is considered the 'smart' Bush by default? When Bully Boy Bush George W. is your brother, maybe being the smart Bush requires only that you stand up right and wipe your own ass?
How else to explain his declaring at the press conference, when asked about Iraq and Afghanistan, "I won't talk about the past. I'll talk about the future."
You don't get that option with an ongoing war. You do have to talk about the past and how the current reality was arrived at.
That's whether or not your own brother started the Iraq War which, for the record, Jeb's brother did.
Ed O'Keefe and Philip Rucker (Washington Post) report today on how he stumbled in a December speech when he tried to slam Barack on Iraq.
Iraq will be an issue regardless -- Barack's inept response to the Islamic State ensures that -- but if Jeb Bush mounts a campaign for the GOP nomination, he will have to address Iraq.
Meanwhile, there's the Democratic side of the equation. Hillary Clinton announcing she's running will be greeted with yawns because she's bored everyone with her will-she-or-won't-she for so long. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) provides a run down of her (male) staff.
In 2008, Hillary's support for the Iraq War was used to destroy her shot at the nomination. (In fairness to Hillary, the DNC worked overtime to ensure she wouldn't win but Iraq was the focal point of her failure.)
Following her failure to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, Hillary took the post of Secretary of State. It was supposed to prove she was a team player and rational.
Instead of being seen as rational, she's became one of the most vocal advocates for war on Libya. Refer to Glenn Greenwald's "Hailed As A Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves To Be The Exact Opposite" for what a success that Barack war has turned out not to be.
And she ended her State Dept career with an embarrassing performance before the Congress as she snarled and screamed, "What difference at this point does it make!" [See the January 23, 2013 snapshot., the January 24, 2013 snapshot, Wally's "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava's "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth's "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat's "Can she not answer even one damn question?"] Senator John McCain's anger issues and rage issues were used against him in the 2008 presidential race. And his detractors didn't even have footage of McCain in a calm setting going crazy.
Hillary could have told the truth at any point when she was Secretary of State -- that she wasn't over Iraq. She was shut out by the administration. But she wanted to preen and pose and pretend she was all powerful. So now she really can't point to the White House failures in Iraq and say, "I wasn't in charge." Though she wasn't in charge to only admit it now would look self-serving. (Check the archives, since 2009 we pointed out that she needed to get honest about that and that a failure to do so would seriously harm a 2016 presidential run.)
She owns Iraq if/when she runs for the Democratic Party nomination. That's partly Barack's responsibility and we'll get to that later.
But the Islamic State, even were it wiped away next month, ensures that foreign policy will be a part of the 2016 presidential race.
Senator Elizabeth Warren isn't running and couldn't win if she did. She has no standing on foreign relations, among other problems. The only Democrat that could seriously run and take on the issue of Iraq on the campaign trail is probably former US Senator Russ Feingold.
Credentials on Iraq can't be faked again. A press wanting 'social justice' (their idiotic notion of it) committed to electing Barack and allowed him to fake his 'strong' opposition to the Iraq War. It's doubtful the press could get away with it again. Nor are they vested in Elizabeth Warren who has a very bad reputation among the press (they see her as "haughty").
Let's turn from the potential 2016 contenders and Iraq to the topic of Iraq and the US Congress.
Today's a tale of two Barbaras. Senator Barbara Boxer has already announced she's not seeking re-election. And maybe that's why she can speak a little stronger than her colleagues? She pens a column carried by the Desert Sun which notes:
President Barack Obama is absolutely correct that our nation must confront these ruthless terrorists. But he was also correct to promise that America would not be sending U.S. combat troops back to the Middle East to fight another ground war.
This is the commitment the president made last June when he said, “I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I’ve said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.” He made the same point again during his State of the Union Address last month when he stated, “Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group.”
That is why I was so surprised by the administration’s draft AUMF which would allow this administration and the next one broad discretion to commit American troops in the fight against ISIL. The only limitation is no “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”
At best, this language is vague, overly broad and confusing — and no one has defined the meaning of “enduring.” At worst, it is a dangerous loophole that could lead to another large-scale conflict involving tens of thousands of American troops. I cannot and will not support such an AUMF.
Apparently, she's decided she'll end her Congressional career with strength and conviction.
But then there's the ridiculous US House Rep Barbara Lee who used to be a serious voice -- or seen as such -- against wars in the days before Barack Obama became president of the United States. In the time since, she's become such an embarrassment that she even lied repeatedly in her ghost written biography (the publisher knew and reworked statements in most cases but it still contained outright lies when it was published).
Last week, we called her out for her weak-ass statement on the AUMF. Today, political closet case John Nichols treats the statement as if its a series of wonderful responses to questions he has asked -- most will assume he spoke with Lee for his piece. It's amazing the lies that this dishonest group tells. They lie and they lie again and they whine about accountability when it comes to others.
But John Nichols 'distinguished' himself in 2008 by rushing to the defense of War Hawk Samantha Power -- with lies -- while ignoring the real reason she had to drop Barack's campaign (telling the BBC that Barack's promise to pull US troops out of Iraq in 10 months wasn't a promise). He's never apologized for his lies, he's never even acknowledged them,. In February 2008, when Barack's campaign was trashing NAFTA publicly while privately telling Canadian officials it was just talk to win votes, John Nichols went on Democracy Now! to insist the story was wrong (AP had broken the story) and it was really Hillary and he had the scoop and he would be breaking atThe Nation.
There was no scoop.
He was lying yet again.
As he always does.
But his lies -- and Amy Goodman's help with them -- stopped outrage at Barack and helped change the discussion.
That's what John Nichols does.
This is the man who pulled together a book on impeachment of Bully Boy Bush and yet, when it was published, walked away from it because Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment was off the table.
John Nichols is a joke -- a dirty joke.
It's great that John continues to promote Barbara Lee because, in doing so, he makes it clear that she's a liar as well because why else would he promote her?
Today, BBC News reports 45 people have been "burned to death" in al-Baghdadi which is south of Haditha and to the northwest of Baghdad. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes officials state 30 burned corpses have been recovered so far.
Saif Hameed, David Alexander, Stephen Kaplin and Gareth Jones (Reuters) reportedlast week that the city was seized by the Islamic State last Thursday. Laura Smith-Spark and Jim Sciutto (CNN) reported that the next day Iraqi ground troops attempted to take back the town on Friday and US helicopters and pilots were deployed to help in the failed operation.
The US involvement in the failed operation was sort of pushed under the rug. Not just because it revealed what a lie Barack's claim that US troops would not see combat but also because it demonstrated that the combined might of the Iraqi forces and the US military had failed against the Islamic State in something as simple as taking back a small town.
Alessandria Masi (IBT) noted that al-Baghdadi was "just 3 miles (5 km) from the Ain al-Asad U.S. Marine Corps base, where roughly 320 Americans are stationed to train Iraqi soldiers."
Had the White House done their job, right now this would be the end of the Islamic State.
Tonight, she joined Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s The Situation Room and attempted to clarify her point.
“I’m not the first person to say something like this,” Harf said. “Military commanders that we’ve had throughout many years here fighting this war on terrorism have said the exact same thing, that in the short term when there’s a threat like ISIL. We’ll take direct military action against these terrorists. We have done that. We are doing that in Iraq and Syria. But longer term, we have to look at how we combat the conditions that can lead people to turn to extremism.”
“So you suggested that maybe if you find these young men jobs, they might not become terrorists?” Blitzer asked, echoing her critics, prompting Harf to call his statement a “gross oversimplification.”
“We cannot kill every terrorist around the world, nor should we try,” Harf said later. “How do you get at the root causes of this? It might be too nuanced an argument for some, like I’ve seen over the last 24 hours some of the commentary out there, but it’s really the smart way that Democrats, Republicans, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat it.”
The US State Dept continues to stumble. For example, they refused to have Marie moderate today's briefing -- as if that would vanish the criticism being made.
QUESTION: Great. Last one: Marie Harf, your colleague, last night I think it was, was on MSNBC saying that we can’t win this war by killing them – when she was talking about ISIS – we cannot kill our way out of this war; we need a longer-term, medium-long-term get after the root causes. She talked about finding jobs for people in these countries where they see no hope. What was she trying to say there?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Ed, she – Marie, my colleague, was saying what we’ve said many times, which is this is not only a military solution. A military solution will not bring an end to ISIL. That’s why there are several components of our coalition. Yes, the military component is important, and we’ve done thousands of strikes in Iraq and Syria. That’s continuing to pick up, as you know, and you’ve covered quite a bit. But we also need to delegitimize ISIL. If the ideology is out there and growing, we – ISIL will continue to grow and thrive. We need to cut off their financing, we need to prevent foreign fighters from moving.
And I – she was also talking about, in her interview, not just ISIL but the CVE summit – and the CVE summit that we’ll be hosting – and I know is happening at the White House over where you are right now – is broad; it’s not just about ISIL – that certainly is a part of it, but it’s about countering violent extremism and how to take on this threat over the long term. And obviously there are several components of that as – and the evidence of that is also all of the different breakout groups that are happening throughout the summit. But again, I think this is something we’ve talked about quite a bit, and the need to make sure we’re working with countries to address some of the root causes that have led to the ability to recruit.
Notice how they don't answer the question.
I do want to be clear though, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give Iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future. Unfortunately, Iraq’s leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there, and that’s created vulnerabilities within the Iraqi government as well as their security forces.
So any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won’t succeed.
So this should be a wake-up call. Iraq’s leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together. In that effort, they will have the support of the United States and our friends and our allies.
As much as last Friday's US military effort to take back al-Baghdadi failed, an even bigger failure has been the White House's non-work towards a political solution.
Examining the Shi'ite militias today, Liz Sly (Washington Post) offers:
The militias’ growing clout is calling into question the sustainability of a strategy in which U.S. warplanes are bombing from the sky to advance the consolidation of power on the ground by groups that are backed by Iran and potentially hostile to the United States, analysts say.
If the fighting continues on its current trajectory, there is a real risk the United States will defeat the Islamic State but lose Iraq to Iran in the process, said Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Though Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has welcomed American assistance and is calling for more, the militias’ strength threatens to undermine his authority and turn Iraq into a version of Lebanon, where a weak government is hostage to the whims of the powerful Hezbollah movement.
Lastly, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes 167 violent deaths across Iraq today and "According to the Minority Rights Group International and the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights as many as 10,000 Iraqi women have been trafficked into sexual slavery or for ransom."
Akbar Shahid Ahmed (Huffington Post) reports, "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is showing signs of trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials ahead of a likely run for president in 2016, establishing himself as a leader in the debate over an authorization to fight the Islamic State and backing away from previous views that critics called too isolationist."
Yes, Iraq will be an issue in the 2016 US presidential race. It should have been one in 2012 but Mitt Romney, carrying the Republican ticket, was an idiot and the press wasn't interested in truth. As September 2012 closed down, when Tim Arango squeezed into an article on Syria the news that US President Barack Obama had just sent a brigade of Special-Ops into Iraq in the fall of 2012.
See 'journalist' Jill Abramson didn't think the news was important enough for the front page. She didn't think it warranted its own story. She thought the September 2012 revelation was too close to the November 2012 election.
She thought burying a scoop and betraying the paper's own interests were what a journalist did.
Cheap liar Jill is no longer party of the New York Times.
She's sewer garbage. She'll never come back out of the gutter.
Anytime the little liar tries, she'll find the same stiletto heel on top of her head that ensured her precious Will had to give up his dreams.
Here's what Tim Arango got into his New York Times report on Syria:
Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.
See that was huge.
Unlike Jill Abramson, we didn't bury here. We wrote about it repeatedly because, though I have many faults and sins, being a cheap whore -- one with really bad fashion sense -- is not among my faults or sins.
See Jill wanted to run the paper but, in the end, she ruined the paper by killing one report on the White House after another because more than truth, more than justice, she wanted Barack to have a second term. And that's what turned the family on her, All the documentation on all the stories the paper had that she either downplayed or outright killed.
In the end, her whoring killed her career. She gives speeches now where she pretends she was a brave journalist. And somehow, every time she does, whispers to the press -- magic? -- reveal she is lying yet again and that she was lying back then.
Let her downfall be a lesson to the rest of the press.
Mitt Romney's campaign thought the American people were too stupid to process on Iraq.
They wanted to claim Barack destroyed Iraq by pulling all troops out of Iraq.
They saw that as portraying him as weak.
Okay, if that's your campaign point then what would paint Barack as weaker than tying on reality to your talking point?
"He pulled all the troops out of Iraq and now things are so bad he's secretly sending Special-Ops back in. But he refuses to tell the American people that he did it because he refuses to admit just how much he screwed up."
They could have sold that.
It would have put Barack on the defensive and taken Mitt off (the press was attacking Mitt for his remarks on Benghazi).
But due to stupidity or whatever, the Mitt Romney campaign decided to fight so weakly no one would mistake it for fighting -- or even campaigning.
It's also true that the press didn't give a damn about Iraq. They were bored with the topic. Which is why Tim Arango's revelation, which preceded the presidential debates, was never raised in one of them -- not even by 'fact' obsessed Candy Crowley.
They wanted to play, the poor bored press, so overpaid and so underworked, they wanted to offer breezy, superficial coverage on superficial topics -- that's part of the reason they took sides on Benghazi (the side being 'ask no questions!').
But lazy bastards that they are, they're going to have to acknowledge Iraq in their 2016 'coverage.'
Not because of Rand Paul.
But because it looks like Hillary Clinton's going to be running for the Democratic Party's nomination and Jeb Bush is going to run for the Republican Party's nomination.
Last week, Jeb Bush held a press conference. Philip Rucker (Washington Post) reported that Jeb announced he wouldn't discuss the Iraq War.
And Jeb's supposed to be the smart Bush?
There's CIA Bush -- dogged by all sorts of sexual rumors and predator rumors over the past decades -- and there's crooked Bush who made money despite the failure of Silverado Savings and Loans. Then there's terrorist friendly Marvin Bush and there's Jeb who is considered the 'smart' Bush by default? When Bully Boy Bush George W. is your brother, maybe being the smart Bush requires only that you stand up right and wipe your own ass?
How else to explain his declaring at the press conference, when asked about Iraq and Afghanistan, "I won't talk about the past. I'll talk about the future."
You don't get that option with an ongoing war. You do have to talk about the past and how the current reality was arrived at.
That's whether or not your own brother started the Iraq War which, for the record, Jeb's brother did.
Ed O'Keefe and Philip Rucker (Washington Post) report today on how he stumbled in a December speech when he tried to slam Barack on Iraq.
Iraq will be an issue regardless -- Barack's inept response to the Islamic State ensures that -- but if Jeb Bush mounts a campaign for the GOP nomination, he will have to address Iraq.
Meanwhile, there's the Democratic side of the equation. Hillary Clinton announcing she's running will be greeted with yawns because she's bored everyone with her will-she-or-won't-she for so long. Dana Milbank (Washington Post) provides a run down of her (male) staff.
In 2008, Hillary's support for the Iraq War was used to destroy her shot at the nomination. (In fairness to Hillary, the DNC worked overtime to ensure she wouldn't win but Iraq was the focal point of her failure.)
Following her failure to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, Hillary took the post of Secretary of State. It was supposed to prove she was a team player and rational.
Instead of being seen as rational, she's became one of the most vocal advocates for war on Libya. Refer to Glenn Greenwald's "Hailed As A Model For Successful Intervention, Libya Proves To Be The Exact Opposite" for what a success that Barack war has turned out not to be.
And she ended her State Dept career with an embarrassing performance before the Congress as she snarled and screamed, "What difference at this point does it make!" [See the January 23, 2013 snapshot., the January 24, 2013 snapshot, Wally's "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava's "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth's "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat's "Can she not answer even one damn question?"] Senator John McCain's anger issues and rage issues were used against him in the 2008 presidential race. And his detractors didn't even have footage of McCain in a calm setting going crazy.
Hillary could have told the truth at any point when she was Secretary of State -- that she wasn't over Iraq. She was shut out by the administration. But she wanted to preen and pose and pretend she was all powerful. So now she really can't point to the White House failures in Iraq and say, "I wasn't in charge." Though she wasn't in charge to only admit it now would look self-serving. (Check the archives, since 2009 we pointed out that she needed to get honest about that and that a failure to do so would seriously harm a 2016 presidential run.)
She owns Iraq if/when she runs for the Democratic Party nomination. That's partly Barack's responsibility and we'll get to that later.
But the Islamic State, even were it wiped away next month, ensures that foreign policy will be a part of the 2016 presidential race.
Senator Elizabeth Warren isn't running and couldn't win if she did. She has no standing on foreign relations, among other problems. The only Democrat that could seriously run and take on the issue of Iraq on the campaign trail is probably former US Senator Russ Feingold.
Credentials on Iraq can't be faked again. A press wanting 'social justice' (their idiotic notion of it) committed to electing Barack and allowed him to fake his 'strong' opposition to the Iraq War. It's doubtful the press could get away with it again. Nor are they vested in Elizabeth Warren who has a very bad reputation among the press (they see her as "haughty").
Let's turn from the potential 2016 contenders and Iraq to the topic of Iraq and the US Congress.
Today's a tale of two Barbaras. Senator Barbara Boxer has already announced she's not seeking re-election. And maybe that's why she can speak a little stronger than her colleagues? She pens a column carried by the Desert Sun which notes:
President Barack Obama is absolutely correct that our nation must confront these ruthless terrorists. But he was also correct to promise that America would not be sending U.S. combat troops back to the Middle East to fight another ground war.
This is the commitment the president made last June when he said, “I think we always have to guard against mission creep, so let me repeat what I’ve said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.” He made the same point again during his State of the Union Address last month when he stated, “Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group.”
That is why I was so surprised by the administration’s draft AUMF which would allow this administration and the next one broad discretion to commit American troops in the fight against ISIL. The only limitation is no “enduring offensive ground combat operations.”
At best, this language is vague, overly broad and confusing — and no one has defined the meaning of “enduring.” At worst, it is a dangerous loophole that could lead to another large-scale conflict involving tens of thousands of American troops. I cannot and will not support such an AUMF.
Apparently, she's decided she'll end her Congressional career with strength and conviction.
But then there's the ridiculous US House Rep Barbara Lee who used to be a serious voice -- or seen as such -- against wars in the days before Barack Obama became president of the United States. In the time since, she's become such an embarrassment that she even lied repeatedly in her ghost written biography (the publisher knew and reworked statements in most cases but it still contained outright lies when it was published).
Last week, we called her out for her weak-ass statement on the AUMF. Today, political closet case John Nichols treats the statement as if its a series of wonderful responses to questions he has asked -- most will assume he spoke with Lee for his piece. It's amazing the lies that this dishonest group tells. They lie and they lie again and they whine about accountability when it comes to others.
But John Nichols 'distinguished' himself in 2008 by rushing to the defense of War Hawk Samantha Power -- with lies -- while ignoring the real reason she had to drop Barack's campaign (telling the BBC that Barack's promise to pull US troops out of Iraq in 10 months wasn't a promise). He's never apologized for his lies, he's never even acknowledged them,. In February 2008, when Barack's campaign was trashing NAFTA publicly while privately telling Canadian officials it was just talk to win votes, John Nichols went on Democracy Now! to insist the story was wrong (AP had broken the story) and it was really Hillary and he had the scoop and he would be breaking atThe Nation.
There was no scoop.
He was lying yet again.
As he always does.
But his lies -- and Amy Goodman's help with them -- stopped outrage at Barack and helped change the discussion.
That's what John Nichols does.
This is the man who pulled together a book on impeachment of Bully Boy Bush and yet, when it was published, walked away from it because Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment was off the table.
John Nichols is a joke -- a dirty joke.
It's great that John continues to promote Barbara Lee because, in doing so, he makes it clear that she's a liar as well because why else would he promote her?
Today, BBC News reports 45 people have been "burned to death" in al-Baghdadi which is south of Haditha and to the northwest of Baghdad. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes officials state 30 burned corpses have been recovered so far.
Saif Hameed, David Alexander, Stephen Kaplin and Gareth Jones (Reuters) reportedlast week that the city was seized by the Islamic State last Thursday. Laura Smith-Spark and Jim Sciutto (CNN) reported that the next day Iraqi ground troops attempted to take back the town on Friday and US helicopters and pilots were deployed to help in the failed operation.
The US involvement in the failed operation was sort of pushed under the rug. Not just because it revealed what a lie Barack's claim that US troops would not see combat but also because it demonstrated that the combined might of the Iraqi forces and the US military had failed against the Islamic State in something as simple as taking back a small town.
Alessandria Masi (IBT) noted that al-Baghdadi was "just 3 miles (5 km) from the Ain al-Asad U.S. Marine Corps base, where roughly 320 Americans are stationed to train Iraqi soldiers."
Had the White House done their job, right now this would be the end of the Islamic State.
June 13, 2014, he stated:
I do want to be clear though, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give Iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future. Unfortunately, Iraq’s leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there, and that’s created vulnerabilities within the Iraqi government as well as their security forces.
So any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won’t succeed.
So this should be a wake-up call. Iraq’s leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together. In that effort, they will have the support of the United States and our friends and our allies.
So any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won’t succeed.
So this should be a wake-up call. Iraq’s leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together. In that effort, they will have the support of the United States and our friends and our allies.
The White House was smart enough to put the words in Barack's mouth, they just weren't smart enough to execute those orders.
And all these months later, people are starting to notice the White House's refusal to work towards political solutions in Iraq.
And all these months later, people are starting to notice the White House's refusal to work towards political solutions in Iraq.
And now some are being held up for ridicule.
While Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly confused himself with the Secretary of Defense, the State Dept spokespersons Marie Harf and Jen Psaki have confused themselves with DoD spokespersons as they trumpeted the bombing efforts of the Defense Dept because they had nothing to trumpet on the diplomatic front in Iraq.
Sunday, Marie tried to fall back on the political solution is necessary when appearing on Meet The Press. Maybe because she's spent months ignoring that point, she's being mocked and so is Psaki. At the conservative National Review, Ian Tuttle opens his mocking with:
Never in the history of public relations have an institution and its representatives been so mismatched as at the current U.S. Department of State, where, tasked with articulating America’s position toward Middle East terror outfits, Russian aggression, and the world’s other vicissitudes, are Jen Psaki and Marie Harf, currently in the midst of an interminable Lucy-and-Ethel routine as Foggy Bottom’s spokesperson and deputy spokesperson, respectively. In an administration that has always given the distinct impression of being directed by second-year poli-sci majors from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Psaki and Harf are the only two under the impression that Legally Blonde was a documentary — one that they are apparently trying to recreate, with little success, at Foggy Bottom.
Matt Wilstein (Mediaite) adds:
Matt Wilstein (Mediaite) adds:
Tonight, she joined Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s The Situation Room and attempted to clarify her point.
“I’m not the first person to say something like this,” Harf said. “Military commanders that we’ve had throughout many years here fighting this war on terrorism have said the exact same thing, that in the short term when there’s a threat like ISIL. We’ll take direct military action against these terrorists. We have done that. We are doing that in Iraq and Syria. But longer term, we have to look at how we combat the conditions that can lead people to turn to extremism.”
“So you suggested that maybe if you find these young men jobs, they might not become terrorists?” Blitzer asked, echoing her critics, prompting Harf to call his statement a “gross oversimplification.”
“We cannot kill every terrorist around the world, nor should we try,” Harf said later. “How do you get at the root causes of this? It might be too nuanced an argument for some, like I’ve seen over the last 24 hours some of the commentary out there, but it’s really the smart way that Democrats, Republicans, our partners in the Arab world think we need to combat it.”
The US State Dept continues to stumble. For example, they refused to have Marie moderate today's briefing -- as if that would vanish the criticism being made.
Of course, the issue was raised in the press briefing and here's Jen Psaki stumbling like an idiot:
QUESTION: Great. Last one: Marie Harf, your colleague, last night I think it was, was on MSNBC saying that we can’t win this war by killing them – when she was talking about ISIS – we cannot kill our way out of this war; we need a longer-term, medium-long-term get after the root causes. She talked about finding jobs for people in these countries where they see no hope. What was she trying to say there?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, Ed, she – Marie, my colleague, was saying what we’ve said many times, which is this is not only a military solution. A military solution will not bring an end to ISIL. That’s why there are several components of our coalition. Yes, the military component is important, and we’ve done thousands of strikes in Iraq and Syria. That’s continuing to pick up, as you know, and you’ve covered quite a bit. But we also need to delegitimize ISIL. If the ideology is out there and growing, we – ISIL will continue to grow and thrive. We need to cut off their financing, we need to prevent foreign fighters from moving.
And I – she was also talking about, in her interview, not just ISIL but the CVE summit – and the CVE summit that we’ll be hosting – and I know is happening at the White House over where you are right now – is broad; it’s not just about ISIL – that certainly is a part of it, but it’s about countering violent extremism and how to take on this threat over the long term. And obviously there are several components of that as – and the evidence of that is also all of the different breakout groups that are happening throughout the summit. But again, I think this is something we’ve talked about quite a bit, and the need to make sure we’re working with countries to address some of the root causes that have led to the ability to recruit.
Notice how they don't answer the question.
What she should have done was referenced Barack's June comments:
I do want to be clear though, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. Over the past decade, American troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give Iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future. Unfortunately, Iraq’s leaders have been unable to overcome too often the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there, and that’s created vulnerabilities within the Iraqi government as well as their security forces.
So any action that we may take to provide assistance to Iraqi security forces has to be joined by a serious and sincere effort by Iraq’s leaders to set aside sectarian differences, to promote stability, and account for the legitimate interests of all of Iraq’s communities, and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force. We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won’t succeed.
So this should be a wake-up call. Iraq’s leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together. In that effort, they will have the support of the United States and our friends and our allies.
They don't reference them because the White House has been unwilling to focus on political solutions.
And that's why, all these months of bombing from the air later, there's no real movement in Iraq and the White House has no lveerage.
Sunnis are more horrified by the Islamic State than ever. But there was nothing done to reach out to them in all this time.
Instead Barack and the White House have willfully and actively looked the other way as their latest puppet (Haider al-Abadi) has continued the targeting of the Sunnis, using Shi'ite militias (as did Nouri) intent on killing Sunni civilians as 'legitimate' forces in Iraq.
Instead Barack and the White House have willfully and actively looked the other way as their latest puppet (Haider al-Abadi) has continued the targeting of the Sunnis, using Shi'ite militias (as did Nouri) intent on killing Sunni civilians as 'legitimate' forces in Iraq.
As much as last Friday's US military effort to take back al-Baghdadi failed, an even bigger failure has been the White House's non-work towards a political solution.
The militias’ growing clout is calling into question the sustainability of a strategy in which U.S. warplanes are bombing from the sky to advance the consolidation of power on the ground by groups that are backed by Iran and potentially hostile to the United States, analysts say.
If the fighting continues on its current trajectory, there is a real risk the United States will defeat the Islamic State but lose Iraq to Iran in the process, said Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Though Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has welcomed American assistance and is calling for more, the militias’ strength threatens to undermine his authority and turn Iraq into a version of Lebanon, where a weak government is hostage to the whims of the powerful Hezbollah movement.
Lastly, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes 167 violent deaths across Iraq today and "According to the Minority Rights Group International and the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights as many as 10,000 Iraqi women have been trafficked into sexual slavery or for ransom."
No comments:
Post a Comment