Sorry, when has there been consistency in US policy on the Islamic Street -- or al Qaeda in Mesopotamia before that -- in Iraq and in Syria?
The lack of consistency on this with regards to the United Kingdom has been a conversation starter -- though little else besides talk -- among British politicians.
So I'm not all that interested in that aspect for that reason.
Second, we do the Iraq snapshot, not the Syria snapshot.
Third, the US government allowed this to take place -- the bombing of northern Iraq.
And they applauded it.
And they took the attitude of it was good and within the rights of Turkey.
So if tomorrow Scotland bombs England for some real or imagined attack, that reaction will be good and perfectly legal and State Dept spokesperson John Kirby will prattle on about Scotland's "right" to carry out the bombings?
The State Dept over reached.
That's part of the story we've focused on.
And you can agree with that approach or not.
But it is part of the story and continues to be.
They're scrambling to craft some sort of cover explanation still -- on how it can be a "right" for Turkey to violate the sovereignty of Iraq -- a supposed US ally.
That's the stand they've taken.
And it's cute to watch the State Dept's Brett McGurk, as I type, try to create fake entries on his Twitter.
And when the call came in stating, "Watch Brett's Twitter feed, it's going to be interesting," I did.
Brett, you've been very active today. What are you trying to bury?
I have no idea but I do have the screen snaps and I will be reviewing. As far as I can tell, you're only creating Tweets (and putting fake dates on them) to distance your feed from the applause for Turkey you did earlier.
I'll review the screen snaps later but when Brett puts up Tweets today but has past dates on them, I find it interesting.
Yesterday's snapshot noted Hillary's Ant Colony rushing to rescue the queen with non-stop spin and lies, specifically Eric B Media Matters who were trying to conflate a New York Times report on Hillary last week with the Iraq coverage Judith Miller did for years at the New York Times. (Miller was not alone but David Brock's Media Matters is a notoriously sexist outfit which had to be shamed into hiring women). An e-mail this morning insist that maybe what I offered yesterday was accurate -- and maybe it was and maybe it wasn't, be skeptical and think for yourself -- but even so, even if the Justice Dept is investigating*, this isn't an investigation into Hillary Clinton.
According to the statement of the Inspector Generals there concern was over classified material found in 40 e-mails "provided by former Secretary Clinton" (which were not released by the State Dept -- use the link and read the statement in full).
I'm not aware of Bill Clinton ever having been Secretary of State.
Was funk master George Clinton once Secretary of State?
As far as I know, it could just be Hillary.
Now there is news that those communicating with her in State may have also used private e-mails?
Where does it end?
And whether or not it's illegal, this inability to properly handle classified information -- something she's attacked Ed Snowden for -- goes to whether or not one is fit to be president.
"*" by investigating is there because I didn't say the Justice Dept was investigating.
The recommendation has been made. Whether or not the AG acts on it is another matter -- and, in fact, she might need to recuse herself from the process and assign someone below her to make the determination. But right now you have the Justice Dept being asked to look into the matter.
And that Hillary has yet again diverted government time and resources because of her own failure to follow policy and guidelines (at best) is as appalling as her inability to keep classified material secure.
The following community sites -- plus NPR -- updated: