Thursday, August 06, 2015

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, August 6, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, 7 US troops have died in Barack's year-long actions against the Islamic State in Iraq, Iraq is a big topic in today's GOP Presidential debate, and more.




Today, Fox News hosted the Republican Party's presidential nominees debate from Cleveland (Facebook partnered with Fox News for the debate).  The top ten contenders for the party's 2016 presidential nomination gathered on stage.

The top ten contenders, as Fox News announced ahead of time, were:



 Real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. 

Those ten made it onto the stage.  They are not the only candidates competing for the Republican party's nomination.  Fox News also noted:


 But former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and several others will not be on the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET stage. The seven who did not make the top 10 will be invited to a separate 5 p.m. ET debate. Aside from Perry and Santorum, this includes Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; former HP head Carly Fiorina; South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham; former New York Gov. George Pataki; and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.



Fox News hosts Megyn Kelly, Brett Baier and Chris Wallace were the moderators for the debate.
Yahoo offers Gideon Yago, Leslie Sanchez, Matt Bai and Jon Ward analyzing the debate.  Fox News offers "voter reaction" here.  (Both links are video.)

Baltimore Sun media critic (and National Press Club award winner this year, Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism-print) David Zurawik critiqued the debate in terms of, among other things, the performance of the moderators and offered:



Kelly versus Trump was a matchup many tuned in to see. Kelly’s persona is built in part on her ability to take down self-important, sexist, windbag men. Trump is all three of those things and then some.
“Mr. Trump,” Kelly said, “you’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your Twitter account …”
“Only Rosie O’Donnell,” he said interrupting Kelly.
“No, it wasn’t,” Kelly said as the audience applauded and whistled at Trump’s line.
Once the applause died down, Kelly, sounding like an attorney on cross examination, resumed by saying, “For the record, it went well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.”
“Yes, I’m sure it did,” Trump said dismissively. 

“Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women. You once told a contestant on ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of someone we should elect as president?”



Iraq came up frequently during the debate and some of the remarks received actual media attention.

Some.


Ben Brody (Bloomberg News) notes: Senator Lindsey Graham maintained that the answer for Iraq was to send US troops into Iraq (and into Syria) to defeat the Islamic State and that he did not believe there were partners in the region who could help with this, "These mythical Arab armies that my friends talk about that are going to protect us don't exist.  If I am president of the United States, we're going to send soldiers back to Iraq, back to Syria, to keep us from being attacked here and keep soldiers in Afghanistan because we must."

For any questioning where Graham stands on the issue, The Daily Caller offers video from the debate of Graham insisting, "We need more ground forces in Iraq."


Lauren Barbato (Bustle) notes that Jeb "Bush called the Iraq War a mistake" and stated, "I wouldn't have gone in."  This was in direct contrast to his spring remarks that he would have done the same thing his brother did.  After making those remarks -- red meat to Republicans who would be voting in the primaries -- he came under intense criticism and the campaign attempted to have surrogates attempt the what-he-meant-was before he finally disowned his earlier statements.

Barbato feels he was making "a calculated" response today in an attempt to appeal to Americans.  He may have been.  Or he may have just been trying to avoid a media beating.

A little over half of Americans feel the Iraq War was a mistake.  That's in the general population.  That number drops when you are polling adults who identify themselves as Republicans.


Dylan Matthews (Vox) explains Donald Trump insisted he'd opposed the Iraq War and done so since July 2004:

"In July of 2004, I came out strongly against the war with Iraq because it was going to destabilize the Middle East. I am the only one on this stage who knew that and had the vision to say it. And that's exactly what happened. The region became totally destabliized.

Of course, the Iraq invasion began on March 19, 2003 — more than a year before the denunciation Trump is bragging about. That's still earlier than most of his fellow GOP candidates, but it's a bit much to brag about one's "vision" in saying that something was going to be a disaster after it had already happened.



From the debate, we'll note the following exchanges on Iraq:
BAIER: Senator Paul, you recently blamed the rise of ISIS on Republican hawks. You later said that that statement, you could have said it better. But, the statement went on, and you said, quote, "Everything they've talked about in foreign policy, they've been wrong for the last 20 years."
Why are you so quick to blame your own party?

 PAUL: First of all, only ISIS is responsible for the terrorism. Only ISIS is responsible for the depravity. But, we do have to examine, how are we going to defeat ISIS?
I've got a proposal. I'm the leading voice in America for not arming the allies of ISIS.

 (APPLAUSE)

 PAUL: I've been fighting amidst a lot of opposition from both Hillary Clinton, as well as some Republicans who wanted to send arms to the allies of ISIS. ISIS rides around in a billion dollars worth of U.S. Humvees. It's a disgrace. We've got to stop -- we shouldn't fund our enemies, for goodness sakes.


 PAUL: So, we didn't create ISIS -- ISIS created themselves, but we will stop them, and one of the ways we stop them is by not funding them, and not arming them.
[. . .]

 KELLY: Well, I want to move on, because I have -- we're gonna get to you, governor, but I -- I really wanna get to a Facebook questioner. His name is Alex Chalgren, and he has the following question:

 (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 QUESTION: My question is, how would the candidates stop the treacherous actions of ISIS -- ISIL and its growing influence in the U.S., if they were to become president?

 (END VIDEO CLIP) 

 KELLY: Senator Cruz, I wanna talk to you about this, because many of the Facebook users and -- and -- the -- the folks on Facebook wanted the candidates to speak to ISIS tonight.
You asked the chairman of the joint chiefs a question: "What would it take to destroy ISIS in 90 days?" He told you "IISIS will only be truly destroyed once they are rejected by the populations in which they hide." And then you accused him of pushing Medicaid for the Iraqis.
How would you destroy ISIS in 90 days?
CRUZ: Megyn, we need a commander in chief that speaks the truth. We will not defeat radical Islamic terrorism so long as we have a president unwilling to utter the words, "radical Islamic terrorism".
(APPLAUSE)
When I asked General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, what would be required militarily to destroy ISIS, he said there is no military solution. We need to change the conditions on the ground so that young men are not in poverty and susceptible to radicalization. That, with all due respect, is nonsense.

 It's the same answer the State Department gave that we need to give them jobs. What we need is a commander in chief that makes -- clear, if you join ISIS, if you wage jihad on America, then you are signing your death warrant.
KELLY: You don't see it as...

 (APPLAUSE)
KELLY: ...an ideological problem -- an ideological problem in addition to a military one?
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: Megyn, of course it's an ideological problem, that's one of the reasons I introduce the Expatriate Terrorist Act in the Senate that said if any American travels to the Middle East and joining ISIS, that he or she forfeits their citizenship so they don't use a passport to come back and wage jihad on Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: Yes, it is ideological, and let me contrast President Obama, who at the prayer breakfast, essentially acted as an apologist. He said, "Well, gosh, the crusades, the inquisitions--"
We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt's President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Governor Bush, for days on end in this campaign, you struggled to answer a question about whether knowing what we know now...
BUSH: ...I remember...
KELLY: ...we would've invaded Iraq...
BUSH: ...I remember, Megyn.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: I remember it too, and ISIS, of course, is now thriving there.
You finally said, "No."
To the families of those who died in that war who say they liberated and deposed a ruthless dictator, how do you look at them now and say that your brothers war was a mistake?
BUSH: Knowing what we know now, with faulty intelligence, and not having security be the first priority when -- when we invaded, it was a mistake. I wouldn't have gone in, however, for the people that did lose their lives, and the families that suffer because of it -- I know this full well because as governor of the state of Florida, I called every one of them. Every one of them that I could find to tell them that I was praying for them, that I cared about them, and it was really hard to do.
And, every one of them said that their child did not die in vain, or their wife, of their husband did not die in vain.
So, why it was difficult for me to do it was based on that. Here's the lesson that we should take from this, which relates to this whole subject, Barack Obama became president, and he abandoned Iraq. He left, and when he left Al Qaida was done for. ISIS was created because of the void that we left, and that void now exists as a caliphate the size of Indiana.
To honor the people that died, we need to -- we need to --- stop the -- Iran agreement, for sure, because the Iranian mullahs have their blood on their hands, and we need to take out ISIS with every tool at our disposal.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Governor Walker, in February you said that we needed to gain partners in the Arab world. Which Arab country not already in the U.S. led coalition has potential to be our greatest partner?
WALKER: What about then (ph), we need to focus on the ones we have. You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we've had in Israel, at least in my lifetime, incredibly important.
You look at the Saudis -- in fact, earlier this year, I met with Saudi leaders, and leaders from the United Arab Emirates, and I asked them what's the greatest challenge in the world today? Set aside the Iran deal. They said it's the disengagement of America. We are leading from behind under the Obama-Clinton doctrine -- America's a great country. We need to stand up and start leading again, and we need to have allies, not just in Israel, but throughout the Persian Gulf.

 [. . .]
KELLY: Well, I want to move on, because I have -- we're gonna get to you, governor, but I -- I really wanna get to a Facebook questioner. His name is Alex Chalgren, and he has the following question:

 (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 QUESTION: My question is, how would the candidates stop the treacherous actions of ISIS -- ISIL and its growing influence in the U.S., if they were to become president?

 (END VIDEO CLIP) 

 KELLY: Senator Cruz, I wanna talk to you about this, because many of the Facebook users and -- and -- the -- the folks on Facebook wanted the candidates to speak to ISIS tonight.
You asked the chairman of the joint chiefs a question: "What would it take to destroy ISIS in 90 days?" He told you "IISIS will only be truly destroyed once they are rejected by the populations in which they hide." And then you accused him of pushing Medicaid for the Iraqis.
How would you destroy ISIS in 90 days?
CRUZ: Megyn, we need a commander in chief that speaks the truth. We will not defeat radical Islamic terrorism so long as we have a president unwilling to utter the words, "radical Islamic terrorism".
(APPLAUSE)
When I asked General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, what would be required militarily to destroy ISIS, he said there is no military solution. We need to change the conditions on the ground so that young men are not in poverty and susceptible to radicalization. That, with all due respect, is nonsense.

 It's the same answer the State Department gave that we need to give them jobs. What we need is a commander in chief that makes -- clear, if you join ISIS, if you wage jihad on America, then you are signing your death warrant.
KELLY: You don't see it as...
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: ...an ideological problem -- an ideological problem in addition to a military one?
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: Megyn, of course it's an ideological problem, that's one of the reasons I introduce the Expatriate Terrorist Act in the Senate that said if any American travels to the Middle East and joining ISIS, that he or she forfeits their citizenship so they don't use a passport to come back and wage jihad on Americans.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: Yes, it is ideological, and let me contrast President Obama, who at the prayer breakfast, essentially acted as an apologist. He said, "Well, gosh, the crusades, the inquisitions--"
We need a president that shows the courage that Egypt's President al-Sisi, a Muslim, when he called out the radical Islamic terrorists who are threatening the world.
(APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Governor Bush, for days on end in this campaign, you struggled to answer a question about whether knowing what we know now...
BUSH: ...I remember...
KELLY: ...we would've invaded Iraq...
BUSH: ...I remember, Megyn.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLY: I remember it too, and ISIS, of course, is now thriving there.
You finally said, "No."
To the families of those who died in that war who say they liberated and deposed a ruthless dictator, how do you look at them now and say that your brothers war was a mistake?
BUSH: Knowing what we know now, with faulty intelligence, and not having security be the first priority when -- when we invaded, it was a mistake. I wouldn't have gone in, however, for the people that did lose their lives, and the families that suffer because of it -- I know this full well because as governor of the state of Florida, I called every one of them. Every one of them that I could find to tell them that I was praying for them, that I cared about them, and it was really hard to do.

 And, every one of them said that their child did not die in vain, or their wife, of their husband did not die in vain.

 So, why it was difficult for me to do it was based on that. Here's the lesson that we should take from this, which relates to this whole subject, Barack Obama became president, and he abandoned Iraq. He left, and when he left Al Qaida was done for. ISIS was created because of the void that we left, and that void now exists as a caliphate the size of Indiana.

 To honor the people that died, we need to -- we need to --- stop the -- Iran agreement, for sure, because the Iranian mullahs have their blood on their hands, and we need to take out ISIS with every tool at our disposal.

 (APPLAUSE)
KELLY: Governor Walker, in February you said that we needed to gain partners in the Arab world. Which Arab country not already in the U.S. led coalition has potential to be our greatest partner?

 WALKER: What about then (ph), we need to focus on the ones we have. You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we've had in Israel, at least in my lifetime, incredibly important.

You look at the Saudis -- in fact, earlier this year, I met with Saudi leaders, and leaders from the United Arab Emirates, and I asked them what's the greatest challenge in the world today? Set aside the Iran deal. They said it's the disengagement of America. We are leading from behind under the Obama-Clinton doctrine -- America's a great country. We need to stand up and start leading again, and we need to have allies, not just in Israel, but throughout the Persian Gulf.




Though Iraq came up frequently in the debate, it was a topic ignored by State Dept spokesperson Mark Toner and those attending the State Dept press briefing today.

With US President Barack Obama spending billions on Iraq -- largely just on bombing Iraq -- it's amazing that the State Dept -- or the reporters covering it -- would ignore Iraq.

But ignoring Iraq is how the current crises came about, remember?


I don't have a lot of respect for the Republicans on stage today because they  ignored the gross betrayal of the Iraqi people by Barack.

Nouri al-Maliki's second term led to the current problems.  We've documented that at length here and done so in real time.

But Nouri didn't win the 2010 election.

And until politicians are ready to point that out, US politicians, and that Barack used a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement) to overturn the votes of the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Constitution, I don't really have a lot of use for them -- and certainly no trust for them.

Supporting Iraqiya was supporting a new Iraq.

Barack chose to strip Iraqiya of its victory and back thug Nouri.

This isn't a minor point.


Nor is Barack's decision to bomb Iraq daily or the year-plus of sending US troops into Iraq minor points.

Leo Shane (Military Times) explains today, "About 3,500 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq, and seven have lost their lives in connection to the new military operations there."

Is anybody else registering those deaths?

Is anyone else even noting them?

On the topic of deaths, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 62 violent deaths across Iraq today.



ADDED: The following community sites updated:

  • The Daily Jot
    THIS JUST IN! HE'LL ALWAYS HAVE DAYTONA IN MARCH!
    3 hours ago
  • Cedric's Big Mix
    The memories
    3 hours ago
  • Ruth's Report
    Unfit
    4 hours ago
  • SICKOFITRADLZ
    Transphobes are such idiots
    4 hours ago
  • Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
    Say it, sister
    11 hours ago
  • Mikey Likes It!
    Turkey keeps bombing
    19 hours ago

  • Like Maria Said Paz
    Hillary loves Brett
    19 hours ago 


























    • Posted by at

    The excuses, the continued failures

    Last weekend saw protests across Iraq.  Abdul Latif al-Saadoun (MEM) observes today:


    "If we cannot provide enough electric power for the Iraqis, why don't the families buy private generators?" asked an Iraqi official during a recent press interview. It was similar to the quotation misattributed to French Queen Marie Antoinette two hundred years ago; if the people don't have bread, "Then let them eat cake."
    Again, like the French, the Iraqis revolted by igniting the uprising in Basra. This spread around the country and this time the Iraqi leaders could not blame the Yazidis, which they had done in the past when there was activity in Iraq's western cities. Those who gathered in Iraq's Tahrir and other Squares did not belong to a specific sect, race or party. They gathered as Iraqis and expressed their anger at their rulers who have subjected them to decades of failure, with neither justice nor anything as mundane as new building projects. Instead, the leaders conspired in the name of religion to loot the country's wealth and used its resources to satisfy their evil desires and feed their obsession for money and power.

    al-Saadoun goes on to note how the Iraqi government went on to blame the Islamic State with Ammar al-Hakim (leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) insisting that the protesters themselves were members of the Islamic State.  How very sad events have been for al-Hakim.  His relationship with the US has soured.  He's not moved forward or higher in the political hierarchy of Iraq.  And now he's attacking the people in a manner that recalls Nouri al-Maliki's ridiculous attacks on the protesters.


    Also looking ridiculous?  The government of Turkey.  They continue bombing northern Iraq despite protests from Iraq's Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, the Cabinet and various politicians.  This week, Nabil Elaraby, head of the Arab League, added his voice to those calling out the bombings.  BGN News notes the response from the Turkish government has been to condemn the remarks.  The statement insists that Turkey is being terrorized.

    Some how this gives them the 'right' to terrorize northern Iraq where they are bombing villages and farms and wounding and killing civilians.

    Middle East Eye notes that the Islamic State is claiming that they are in full control of Baiji.

    If true, it's an even more damning comment on the 'strategy' to confront the Islamic State.

    As Iraqi forces flounder in Anbar Province, it should be remembered that when Ramadi fell (Ramadi is in Anbar Province) to the Islamic State months ago, it happened at the same time as the Baiji refinery was in danger of being seized.

    Instead of protecting the Iraqi people in Anbar, Haider order forces to Baiji.

    That underscored what he considered the real priority.

    If the Islamic State now controls Baiji, it again proves the 'plan' or 'strategy' by Haider and Barack is an unmitigated failure.









     The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.








    Posted by at

    Wednesday, August 05, 2015

    Iraq snapshot

    Wednesday, August 6, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack invokes the Iraq War to sell his Iran deal, and much more.



    Dripping with desperation, US President Barack Obama attempted to sell his proposed deal with Iraq today.

    Instead of explaining what was in the deal and how this would be good for the United States and the world, Barack elected to traffic in fear and bitchery.

    The Hindu reports:

     President Barack Obama warned Congress that rejecting the nuclear agreement with Iran would be the worst mistake since the invasion of Iraq and would lead to "another war" in the Middle East.


    Fear and lies, it was 2002 all over again.

    Agree with me, he insisted, or there will be war.

    Trust me, he argued, and that what I say is true because, after all, I just said it.

    He didn't prove anything and basic fact checks of his statements tended to expose one lie after another.

    For example, David Swanson's analysis of the speech includes:



    “This deal is not just the best choice among alternatives—this is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever.” —President Obama
    Except, of course, for the Nonproliferation Treaty! if its parties were to comply with it. (I'm looking at you, President Obama.)
    The President's tweets -- tweeted by someone other than the President of course -- came during a speech he gave at American University, from which a transcript will likely be posted on the White House website.
    Obama, in truth, has zero evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon. Zero. None. The claim that he halted a nuclear weapons program in Iran is outrageous -- as crazy as Dick Cheney's claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
    Obama might claim he was only suggesting he'd halted a nuclear ENERGY program, but the reader who would put that interpretation on his statement, and combine it with an understanding that Iran's program has been exclusively for energy, has got to be rare, given the propaganda being pushed by Obama, his supporters, and his opponents.

    Remarkably, neither the advocates of war, nor the momentary fans of diplomacy, will point out that Iran has never threatened the United States and has no nuclear weapons program.



    Yes, it was 2002 all over again as Barack, like Bully Boy Bush before him, used the threat of wars to try to push through what he wanted.  Fear mongering.  FITS News observes:
    “I know it’s easy to play on people’s fears, to magnify threats … but none of these arguments hold up,” Obama said during an address at American University.
    Really?  All we know is Iran’s ruler – Hassan Rouhani – referred to the deal Obama negotiated as an “answered prayer.”  That can’t be good.
    More to the point: In the same speech Obama blasted critics for “playing on people’s fears,” he engaged in … wait for it … the exact same fearmongering.
    “Let’s not mince words,” Obama said.  “The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war.  Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”
     


    It was Bully Boy Bush who helped hardened divisions in the United States with 'you're either with us or against us' nonsense which failed to recognize that people could have honest disagreements.

    Barack was supposed to usher in change.

    He was going to do so much for the public dialogue.

    He would be able to do this, you may remember, because he was not of the baby boom.  (He actually is by a baby boomer by most definitions of the generation.)

    He would be able to bridge the divide, dismiss the "Tom Hayden Democrats," and allow for better dialogue.

    That was the argument.

    Didn't hold up, but that was the argument.


    Kevin Liptak (CNN) points out, "He declared that lawmakers risk damaging American credibility if they vote to scuttle the deal and equated them with those who pushed for war with Iraq -- and with the mullahs in Iran."


    So if you opposed the deal, you are in league with the mullahs?

    And the Legion of Doom as well?

    Why not include them because this speech was the most idiotic political speech since Lois Griffin ran for mayor of Quahog on Family Guy (and, using Brian's advice, Lois decided to repeatedly invoke 9/11) and gave speeches while seeking the office and after being elected.

    Attempting to persuade citizens to support a tax hike, Lois declares at one point, "We have intelligence that suggests that Hitler is plotting with -- with the Legion of Doom to assassinate Jesus using the lake as a base."

    That assertion would have fit right in with the ones Barack made today.

    Meanwhile, Barack worked overtime to use Iraq to justify his deal with Iran.

    Dan De Luce and John Hudson (Foreign Policy) note:

    Obama’s use of the Iraq War as a political cudgel against opponents of the deal carries clear risks for the president. Obama has consistently taken public credit for bringing the long and deeply unpopular Iraq War to what he has called a responsible end, but the Iraqi Army disintegrated last year in the face of the Islamic State, and the militants have conquered vast swaths of the country. Many critics — including prominent Democrats and an array of current and retired senior military commanders — say that Obama’s rush to withdraw American forces helped pave the way for the rise of the Islamic State.
    In recent months, Obama has been forced to send roughly 3,000 U.S. troops to train Iraqi forces and tribal fighters to take on the militant group. The Pentagon has also spent almost one full year bombing Islamic State targets in both Iraq and Syria.



    Barack's sudden concern over those who supported the Iraq War has never resulted in a litmus test for his own Cabinet.  Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many others who supported the Iraq War have been offered posts by Barack but those who opposed the war -- US House Rep Maxine Waters, Dennis Kuccinich, etc -- have not been offered Cabinet posts.


    On the Republican side, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham supported the Iraq War.  Today, the two issued the following joint-statement:

    Aug 05 2015

    Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today released the following statement President Obama’s remarks on the Iran nuclear agreement at American University in Washington, DC:
    “President Obama's speech today is just another example of his reliance on endless strawmen to divert attention from his failed policies. It is particularly galling to hear the President try to defend his nuclear agreement with Iran by claiming that its critics also supported the war in Iraq. Having presided over the collapse of our hard-won gains in Iraq, the rise of the most threatening terrorist army in the world, the most devastating civil war and humanitarian catastrophe in generations in Syria, the spread of conflict and radicalism across the Middle East and much of Africa, a failed reset with Russia, and escalating cyber attacks and other acts of aggression for which our adversaries pay no price, the President should not throw stones from his glass house.
    “In addition to jousting with strawmen, the President also repeated his reliance on false choices. No one believes that military force can or should solve all problems. No one believes that diplomacy, including diplomacy with adversaries, is tantamount to weakness. What we object to is the President's lack of realism – his ideological belief that diplomacy is good and force is bad, which has repeatedly resulted either in failed deals or bad deals. The alternative to this deal was never war; it was greater pressure on Iran and insistence on a better agreement.
    “President Obama’s deal with Iran empowers one of our chief antagonists and the world’s most radical Islamist regime with a pathway to the bomb, missiles to deliver it, money to pay for it, and the means to acquire a new military arsenal. Instead of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, this agreement would lock it in place. Instead of weakening this radical regime, a regime with American blood on its hand, this agreement would make Iran stronger. Before the deal, Iran was able to destabilize Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. After this deal, Iran’s power in the region will only be enhanced as it ultimately becomes a member of the nuclear club. A more powerful Iran with a bomb in the Ayatollah’s hands is a direct threat to the United States and an existential threat to our allies in Israel.
    “President Obama clearly does not understand the Middle East and has made one blunder after another. He was wrong when he ignored sound military advice to leave a residual force in Iraq. He was wrong when he turned down the advice of his national security team when they urged him to help Free Syrian Army fighters when it could have made a difference. He was wrong when he failed to enforce his own red lines against Bashar Assad. He was wrong when he declared ISIL a ‘JV team.’ He was wrong when he built a presidential campaign around a message of ‘Bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is decimated.’ And he is wrong about this deal with Iran.
    “Those of us who have warned President Obama about his past mistakes are warning him again about the consequences of this deal with Iran. We hope the American people realize this deal should be rejected and will weigh in to have their voice heard.”
    ###




    The press was full on whore mode as evidenced by crap like that churned out by Margaret Talev and Toluse Olorunnipa:

     Obama rode to the White House in 2008 on his early, vocal and mostly lonely opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. More than a decade later, he says the fight over the Iran deal is with the same group of neoconservative politicians and commentators who beat the drum for war over diplomacy to meet what turned out to be a non-existent threat in Iraq.



    I will never understand the mentality of a dirty whore who, all these years later, still wants to whore on this topic.



    Barack gave a speech to a tiny group of people in 2002 where he was against going to war in Iraq.  And then he dropped that opposition.  I know it for a fact because as Elaine and I have noted for years now (before he got into the White House) we were face to face with him when he was running for the US Senate, sold on him by friends, ready to write checks for the maximum donations legally permitted when, during our face time, he insisted that the US military was in Iraq now so opposition no longer mattered.  He was for the war now.  We did not donate, we did not stick around.  We immediately walked out on the fake ass Barack and his fake ass supporters.


    Margaret Talev once reported for Knight Ridder.  Today she's just a dirty whore -- one of many.



    Let's drop back to the January 9, 2008 snapshot when Socialist Matthew Rothschild, then still posing as a Democrat publicly, felt the need to lash out at Bill Clinton for rightly noting that Barack's Iraq reputation was a "fairy tale:"

     


    It is a "fairy tale."  We've used that term and many others to describe the lies about 'anti-war' Bambi.  The New York Times?  I believe we last noted Bambi telling them he didn't know how he would have voted in the January 4th snapshot: " Obama tells Monica Davey (New York Times, July 26, 2004) he doesn't know how he would have voted if he'd been in the Senate.  Two years later, he's telling David Remnick (The New Yorker) he doesn't know how he would have voted."  


    Davey:
                         
    He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
    In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.


    "But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."        


    "What would I have done?"

    "I don't know."


    Speaking to Remnick:


     I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test. 


    Didn't know what he would have done then.

    But today whores like Margaret let him pretend to have been opposed to the Iraq War and steady and consistent in that opposition.

    It's a lie.

    Unlike Margaret and her peers, Barry Grey (WSWS) can offer truths about 'peace' king Barack:

    The president touted his supposed anti-war credentials, citing his opposition to the Iraq invasion, which he used to appeal to anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment in his 2008 election campaign. He did not bother to square this pretense with his record in office—continuing the Iraq bloodbath for another two years after coming to power, massively expanding the war in Afghanistan, organizing the war for regime-change that left Libya in a permanent state of chaos, and orchestrating a catastrophic civil war for regime-change in Syria.
    Over the past year, he has launched a new war in Iraq, initiated the bombing of Syria and backed a murderous war by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Just days before his speech at American University, he backed the carving out of a “buffer zone” in Syria by Turkish forces and sanctioned US air strikes against Syrian government forces in support of US-funded and trained mercenaries operating in the country.



    Barack's latest wave of war on Iraq means more US troops sent into Iraq.  Amanda Dolasinski (Fayetteville Observer) reports today:


    The Pentagon announced Wednesday about 1,250 soldiers from Fort Drum, New York, will rotate to Iraq to back the U.S. intervention against the Islamic State.
    The soldiers, from 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, will deploy in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

    "These are routine rotations to replace personnel that are already there," Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said in a briefing on Wednesday.


    But he had the nerve to hide behind Iraq today?


    The point of today's speech?  Raf Sanchez (Telegraph of London) explains, "The speech is part of an all-out White House lobbying effort to convince Democratic members of Congress to support the deal in a vote in September."


    Will the awful speech help?


    Who knows.

    But Kevin Liptak (CNN) wades in and offers:
    The unanswered question is whether that framing -- viewed even by some supporters of the deal as overly simplistic -- will be effective in swaying enough votes in Congress to, at a minimum, sustain a veto on any measure objecting to the accord.
    "I don't think that aids the cause," Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and came out in favor of the deal Wednesday, said of Obama's "common cause" language. "In fact, I think there are Republicans that are really thinking hard about this agreement. I was talking to one this afternoon. And I don't think it helps."



    Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts 119 violent deaths across Iraq today.



    More on Iraq today?

    Why?

    Barack has allowed Iran to drown out Iraq repeatedly.

    Grasp that.

    Nothing can be done with regards to this or that in Iraq because (a) Iran consumes all the White House's time and attention and (b) and this deal was supposed to have been wrapped up in March continues to eat all up all the oxygen in the room.



    The following community sites updated:















    Posted by at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)