REUTERS reports, "President Barack
Obama will meet with the leaders of Iraq, Nigeria and Colombia on the
sidelines of the annual United Nations General Assembly gathering next
week, the White House said on Friday."
Well I guess that makes up for his failures to visit Iraq.
He's visited it once and only once since becoming President of the United States.
April 7, 2009.
His only visit.
He's sent US troops back in but his fine little ass won't be going there, you understand.
Totally disengaged.
Which is how Ammar al-Hakim went from friendly to the US to openly hostile.
He's made remarks for nearly two years now.
The State Dept wasn't concerned about these public remarks.
The White House didn't give a damn that relationship had openly deteriorated.
We noted it here.
Repeatedly.
We thought it was a big deal.
Guess what?
It was.
Mustafa Naser (AL-MONITOR) reports:
The National Alliance, the largest predominantly Shiite political bloc
that holds 185 out of 328 parliamentary seats, decided Sept. 5 to elect Ammar al-Hakim,
the head of the Islamic Supreme Council, as its leader in an unexpected
move that came without any news about the coalition's intention to
choose a new president being previously published.
So he went from heading a large Shi'ite group to heading the even larger Shi'ite grouping: The National Alliance.
Oops.
Barack and John Kerry were caught pants down yet again.
How do you think it plays out, Barack lecturing the Muslim world?
If you're still pondering that, All Iraq News reports:
The
head of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, Ammar al-Hakim, denounced
the "double standards of the US towards fighting terrorism, considering
these double standards as "helpful factor for encouraging terrorism."
In
his speech at the weekly cultural Forum he holds in his office in
Baghdad, al-Hakim said "We heard reports over killing a Muslim family in
the US for racist reasons but we did not hear any denouncement for this
crime," noting that "Even the US President took many days to issue a
denouncement for this crime which is considered a clear evidence for
double standards."
That's not Moqtada al-Sadr, cleric and movement leader, speaking.
Moqtada? The press loves to call him "radical cleric" because he
opposes US forces on Iraqi soil and always has and because he's
repeatedly called out the US government.
No, that's Ammar. Ammar who, like his late father, has always been a friend to the US government.
Ammar who many administration officials were saying should be named Iraq's new prime minister (instead it was Haider al-Abadi).
Ammar felt the need to call out Barack.
Again, we noted the problems in real time.
And noted how serious they were.
But the White House and the State Dept knew best.
So now the leader of the most powerful political organization in Iraq is someone who no longer has a friendly relationship with the US and is now filled with animosity.
Good going, Barack, what a visionary you are.
His 'plan' continued today with the US Defense Dept announcing:
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted seven
strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi
government:
-- Near Qaim, three strikes destroyed an ISIL weapons cache and two vehicle-bomb facilities.
-- Near Hit, two strikes destroyed an ISIL headquarters building, a command-and-control node and a weapons facility.
-- Near Mosul, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle, two mortar systems and an artillery system.
-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle.
Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic
events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a
single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a
single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle
is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons
against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for
example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or
impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not
report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number
of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual
munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in
counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a
strike.
The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, SOCIALIST WORKER and FRESH AIR -- updated:
THIRD?
Ava and I worked for hours on our piece (SNOWDEN). We're done with what we were supposed to do. Hopefully content will post Monday.
