Saturday, August 03, 2019

Iraq

Tulsi Gabbard is an Iraq War veteran, so is Adam Kokesh.  Unlike Tulsi, Adam's spoken out against the war. 

Tulsi's problem with the Iraq War today appears to be that it's never-ending. 


 Aug 1
I've heard some Ls support in primary bc she's most anti-war even though she's pro-militarism & a big govt liberal. This is dangerously misguided. If you have Trump vs anti-war Dem, we have one less issue to take D votes w. Support our own!
24 replies10 retweets53 likes
 
 



As Adam observes, she is pro-militarism.

That would go a long way towards explaining why she refuses to challenge Joe Biden but instead has made herself over into an apologist for Joe.  As Marcia points out, Tulsi gets a lot of donations from the defense industry -- which would explain her pro-militarism stance.


Tulsi wants to talk about who's getting funded by whom but she doesn't think it's strange that she's taking money from the defense industry?

She talked a good game, didn't she?

She can defend Joe Biden because she doesn't care about Iraq, she doesn't care about the Iraqi people. 

The editorial board of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL observes:

 Yet when criticized about his 2002 vote for the Iraq war, Mr. Biden had a memory lapse.
“I did make a bad judgment, trusting the President [George W. Bush] saying he was only doing this to get inspectors in and get the U.N. to agree to put inspectors in,” Mr. Biden said. “From the moment ‘shock and awe’ started, from that moment I was opposed to the effort, and I was outspoken as much as anyone at all in the Congress and the Administration.”

Mr. Biden forgets that he was also a loud critic of Saddam Hussein, had been so for many years, and also worried that the dictator might have weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knew that the vote in 2002 was about authorizing a potential military intervention.



That's who Tulsi defends.  William Rivers Pitt (TRUTHOUT) explains:

 At almost the same time as active combat was reinitiated in Iraq, the U.S. opened a parallel front in what became known as the war on terror, this time in Afghanistan. In the 17 years since our conflict in that country began, hundreds of thousands of civilians have also been killed or displaced, and thousands of U.S. and coalition troops have been killed or wounded.
The dying has not ended in Iraq or Afghanistan.
“At least two Iraqi people were killed and 20 others injured in a suicide bombing near a Shiite mosque in southwestern Baghdad,” Iraqi News reported on July 15. “Violence in the country has surged further with the emergence of Islamic State extremist militants who proclaimed an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in Iraq and Syria in 2014.”

The violence in Afghanistan, too, is ongoing. “Last year was the deadliest year for civilians during the entirety of the Afghan conflict,” reports The Washington Post, “with 3,804 civilian deaths and 7,000 wounded.” On Monday, two U.S. soldiers were killed in Urozgan province, bringing the total number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to 14.
“The number of civilians injured or killed in US air strikes in Afghanistan has almost tripled in the first six months of this year compared to the same period last year, according to the UN,” reports The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. “Among the civilian casualties recorded by [The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] so far this year are ten children, all members of the same family, who were killed with at least three others in a US strike in Kunduz.”
The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become the Forever War, and it is not the first of its kind.


At some point, maybe Tulsi will give a speech -- or at least a few sentences -- about the Iraqis killed in the Iraq War or is just all about her all the time?


Has she ever even spoken about any of the prime ministers of Iraq?  About the government?  Someone who really is anti-war would have a lot to say, strangely though, she has nothing.  Over at ARAB WEEKLY, Tallha Abdulrazaq offers:

The laughable thing is that, even if a handful of people in the Iraqi government wanted to end the IRGC proxies running amok across Iraq, the very arms of government and the security forces are filled to the brim with Iranian agents.
Take Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, for example. Following Saudi and US pressure, he recently ordered all militias to either disarm and join the political process or merge into the Iraqi armed forces. Not only is Abdul-Mahdi’s suggestion unworkable, because it does not remove the problem of Iranian influence, the militias have ignored previous calls to disarm.
Abdul-Mahdi was a high-ranking member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, itself an Iran-incubated Shia Islamist political project that sought to implement Iran’s brand of Khomeinism in Iraq.

Is it therefore any surprise at all that the Iraqi government, when led by the likes of Abdul-Mahdi and countless other elites who owe their loyalty to Iran, will act in Tehran’s best interests at the expense of Washington’s or indeed the Iraqi people’s?

The following sites updated:











Posted by at