Thursday, July 11, 2019

Iraq snapshot

Thursday,  July 11, 2019.  A new poll finds the never-ending wars are not seen as worth it, Tom Steyer's campaign creates a question: Why?, and much more.

Hate and ignorance helps start wars and it helps the wars to keep going.  Senator Elizabeth Warren Tweeted about war and someone shows up -- an American -- to declare "we should just go in wipe out all of Iran/Iraq and the world will be a better place."

Wow.  Hateful and a racist.  She's got a Tweet calling Barack a Muslim and saying that a "white knight"  -- let's just post it.

It’s pathetic when a Muslim can become president and tries to ruin our country and gets praised and then a white knight gets chosen by the people to save us and make our country better but gets nothing but condemnation. SO VERY SAD

It's pathetic that some people hate so much.

It's really sad that in 2019, someone thinks a 'solution' (the 'final' one/) is to kill all the people in Iraq and Iran.  And she's not even aware enough to grasp how offensive her remarks are.

While Anthar72 makes her views known, Ruth Igielnik and Kim Parker (PEW RESEARCH CENTER) report on PEW's latest poll:

Nearly 18 years since the start of the war in Afghanistan and 16 years since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, majorities of U.S. military veterans say those wars were not worth fighting, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of veterans. A parallel survey of American adults finds that the public shares those sentiments.
Among veterans, 64% say the war in Iraq was not worth fighting considering the costs versus the benefits to the United States, while 33% say it was. The general public’s views are nearly identical: 62% of Americans overall say the Iraq War wasn’t worth it and 32% say it was. Similarly, majorities of both veterans (58%) and the public (59%) say the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting. About four-in-ten or fewer say it was worth fighting.
Veterans who served in either Iraq or Afghanistan are no more supportive of those engagements than those who did not serve in these wars. And views do not differ based on rank or combat experience.

So why aren't these never-ending wars a focus of the ongoing campaigns?  US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Tulsi Gabbard has made the issue a focus of her campaign -- and tied it into how the costs of these forever wars impact our needs domestically.  Senator Bernie Sanders gives a nod to them.  Former Senator Mike Gravel raises the issue consistently.  Who else?  Marianne Williamson, former US House Rep Beto O'Rourke and US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Seth Moulton.

Pete Buttigieg?  Please.  I've gone back 24 Tweets and he's got nothing.  That takes you to July 4th and even that apparently didn't make him call for an end to forever wars. 

Senator Kamala Harris and former Vice President Joe Biden had a few exchanges at the debate last month.  As we noted last week, the press is a sexist institution and that has benefited Joe -- short version, an idiot (Tim Ryan) stood onstage at the debates and claimed the Taliban attacked the US on 9/11 and no one felt the need to 'educate' him but a pig felt the need to 'educate' Kamala on her comments regarding Joe.  Rebecca Traister has a series of Tweets that really get to the sense of entitlement on the part of the Biden campaign.

There are a lot of issues about the campaign that are not being covered -- that may be due partly to the number of candidates running.  And into that already large pool jumped another on Sunday.

It’s true. I’m running for president.

Why?  Why are you running?  You're going to take the government back for the people?  So he's what?  Robin Hood?

He plans to spend $100 million of his own in his run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  Remember in 2004, when John Kerry flirted with stepping away from public funding for the general election and we were all so appalled that he had to walk it back?  Remember in 2008 when Barack walked away from it.  It was a small reform but one of the few that had existed.  Now you get Tom boasting that he'll spend $100 million in the primary.  It's greed and the greedy don't usually deliver much to everyone else.

Doubt it?

Michael Finnegan and Seema Metha (LOS ANGELES TIMES) report:

When Tom Steyer was running a hedge fund in 2000, he wrote a letter telling some wealthy investors their money would soon flow through an offshore company that would shield their gains from U.S. taxes.
It was routine in finance, but could prove toxic in politics.
Now that the San Francisco billionaire has joined the crowd of Democrats running for president, much of what he did to build his personal fortune, including a stint at Goldman Sachs in the 1980s, could turn off voters. His fund’s investments in coal mining and private prisons are two of the biggest hazards.

At THE WEEK, Matthew Walther offers:

This is a terrible idea for everyone involved. Steyer might be richer than Trump, but he is not a compelling speaker. His candidacy will only delay the inevitable winnowing that should take place for the Democrats sooner rather than later. At the margin, having the extra obscure congressman or small-town mayor in the race does not matter much (except to those of us who have to remember their names) because no one takes these people seriously. But even though Steyer is a hopeless candidate, he will still be considered a serious one. His considerable fortune could keep him in the race for an unnaturally long time.
But there are two even greater risks posed by Steyer's pointless vanity campaign. The first is simply that the earnings from his vast and somewhat dodgy business empire could be put to much better use helping Democrats win state and local elections, carrying ballot initiatives, challenging GOP legislation in the courts, and, eventually, supporting whoever ends up being the party's actual nominee. You know, the equally expensive but more or less unglamorous stuff that probably won't get you invitations to Meet the Press every other week.
The second problem Democrats should have with Steyer is his obsession with impeachment. If a recent interview with The Atlantic is any indication, impeachment is going to be for him what climate change is to Jay Inslee. But impeachment is not a priority for anyone outside certain segments of the Democratic base. It polls very badly in Michigan and other states that Democrats actually need to win in 2020, even among people who otherwise say that they do not support Donald Trump. It also has little chance of success in the House, and absolutely none of leading to the president's removal from office by the Senate. Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the party establishment know this only too well, which is why they have used the special counsel investigation and the various follow-up hearings to undermine Trump's presidency without bothering about the i-word. Any attempt to make it a wedge issue in 2020 will hurt the chances of the eventual nominee. Under no circumstances should Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders come out in favor of it, no matter how many times Steyer brings it up in debates or whines about it in ads.

And Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Tweeted the following.

The Democratic primary should not be decided by billionaires, whether they’re funding Super PACs or funding themselves. The strongest Democratic nominee in the general will have a coalition that’s powered by a grassroots movement.

The following sites updated: