Moving to Dumb Tweets (maybe we should make that a regular feature?):
-
Haven't seen a senior Republican once mention that Iran is first & foremost fighting ISIS on the ground in Iraq. Have I missed one?
You've missed several.
Are we surprised?
Have you seen an NYU professor decrying the War Crimes of the Baghdad-based government? The use of collective punishment on Falluja for over 18 months now?
No, I haven't seen one either.
Because they're not very smart and they're so poorly informed.
The issue of Iran's 'lead' was actually addressed in a Senate hearing this month.
But if you only get your information from MSNBC -- which has no real reporters -- you won't know that, will you?
And, for the record, the month prior it was also addressed in a House hearing with Democratic members of the Committee especially voicing horror over what the Iranian influence was doing in terms of assaults on Sunnis.
We're not here to spoon feed idiotic professors. Maybe if they'd do some real work instead of zoning out in front MSNBC, they'd be informed?
Fox News.
Ray Odierno.
What did he say?
A number of e-mails ask why this wasn't noted?
The former top US commander in Iraq made comments on Fox News Tuesday night.
We didn't note them in the snapshot.
I don't watch Fox (for the same reason I don't watch MSNBC -- I agree with Bill Clinton's criticism).
I did try to watch what was available online and it seemed clipped.
Looking at the e-mails this morning, I did search Fox News out with the remote.
Their morning show is showing clips.
Not the interview.
Yesterday, it was being presented -- by the right wing Weekly Standard -- as though Odierno had criticized the current administration (Barack Obama's administration) and as though it was over pulling (most) troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011.
That's not what I get from the clips.
It may be what he's saying.
What I see in the clips is he is saying that, going into 2010, major changes had taken place and there was improvement and a chance for Iraq.
Then, in what I would call a jump cut (severe edit, for lack of better term), he's being asked basically if a residual force should have been left and he's saying that that would have been helpful.
The Weekly Standard article splices the two together.
And that might be how the conversation went.
Or it might be a sign of the stupidity of The Weekly Standard.
The jarring edit (or possibly a poor interviewer who doesn't know how to transition) makes me doubt that the two are part of the same strand.
I think he's offering a critique of the administration's approach, yes.
But Odierno has had a huge 2010 beef with the administration (and Chris Hill) and I think that's what he's speaking to.
Ahead of the 2010 elections, Odierno is the one who put the question forward: What happens if Nouri al-Maliki loses his re-election bid and refuses to step down?
And this was dismissed by Hill and others.
For a variety of reasons.
Odierno's hypothetical wasn't explored but it is what ended up happening.
And Barack made the decision not to back the 2010 winner but instead to back Nouri.
This decision was huge in doing harm to Iraq.
The Weekly Standard's never been interested in that.
But people who pay attention to Iraq have long noted this decision (that includes us) as what sent Iraq into the spiral (the same crises that are still present today).
When he's talking 2010, that sounds like what he's talking about.
I would argue that's his big criticism.
He's then asked about the residual force being left and his remarks are of a different nature but he does allow that might have made a difference. (And I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't see that as a mistake but as the clips exist currently, I'm only guessing.)
The following community sites updated:
They need to be asked about Clark
3 hours ago
Somebody Killed Her Husband
3 hours ago
Rickie Lee Jones
3 hours ago
The fake asses
3 hours ago
There is no economic recovery
3 hours ago
This is someone to support?
3 hours ago
One last roll in the hay
17 hours ago
