Saturday, February 6, 2016

Predator of the United States

pous12

 


From June 16, 2013, that' "Predator of the United States." 


C.I. wrote:

Barack lurks outside the window of a couple and declares, "Who ever said I was just interested in your phone calls and e-mails?"    Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.


What stands out about that comic?

The worst time of my life.

I'm not joking.

I got involved with a woman who would have a fit every time I drew a comic.

"Why are you doing that?  You're not even making money off it!"

I don't know if she was saying that on the above.

By August she was.

It ended the day after Labor Day.

Thank God.

She was the worst.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"




Saturday, February 6, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, British troops are reportedly the victims of violence in Iraq, Haider says the wall is not going up around Baghdad, others say construction on the wall has begun, Barack Obama releases some -- not all -- photos of abuse, and much more.



The US Defense Dept announced more bombs dropped on Iraq today.  As Sonny & Cher used to sing, And the beat goes on . . .

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 14 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Habbaniyah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Mosul, five strikes struck four separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed four ISIL assembly areas, three ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle, and eight ISIL command and control nodes.

-- Near Qayyarah, three strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL assembly area.

-- Near Ramadi, three strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed five ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL heavy machine guns, an ISIL recoilless rifle, and an ISIL fuel transporter, six ISIL weapons caches, an ISIL command and control node, an ISIL front end loader, and an ISIL vehicle borne bomb facility.

-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions.


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.



Since August 2014, Barack's been ordering Iraq bombed to bring 'peace.'  All these months later, peace has still not arrived.

As Russ Wellen (FPIF) observes, "It’s hard to believe, but 13 years after the United States invaded Iraq and the situation isn’t much better than when it was at its worst."

Today, Jay Akbar (DAILY MAIL) reports, "Three British Special Forces soldiers were wounded in a firefight with 30 ISIS militants in Iraq, it has been reported.  The SAS and SBS are said to have been on a secret mission deep inside enemy territory when the terrorists opened fire on them with machine guns mounted on American-built Humvees."  THE MIRROR adds:


 But the heroes’ bravery has not been officially acknowledged as Tory ministers lean on defence chiefs not to acknowledge the secret ground war being fought by our special forces in Iraq and Syria .
The SAS and SBS soldiers suffered blast and fragmentation injuries as 30 ISIS thugs fired on them during a 25-strong allied special forces patrol in northern Iraq.
It is believed these are the first major military injuries of Britain’s shadowy war.

Estelle Shirbon and Jeremy Gaunt (REUTERS) note, "The Ministry of Defence said it did not comment on special forces operation."


At Friday's US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson John Kirby was asked to comment on a new development.


QUESTION: The Pentagon released 198 previously classified photos that document abuse or mistreatment of some detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2009. Are you concerned that putting these – I know that there has been some concern with the government. They’ve been trying to withhold them. So now that they’re finally out, what are you – is the State Department issuing any warnings to Americans overseas to be cautious or to watch out essentially for any --


MR KIRBY: Well, look, any citizen traveling can go to our website and read whatever our travel warnings and alerts are. I’m not aware of any specific alerts with respect to this release. That said, we have made sure that our posts and our embassies, particularly in the Middle East, were aware of this release and were aware of the essential content of it and reinforced what they already know, which is they have to do what they need to do based on the temperature there – the security temperature – to look after the safety and security not only of our facilities, but providing information – the appropriate information – to American citizens there.


QUESTION: And do you think these photos could lead to retaliatory-type attacks or --


MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. I wouldn’t want to do that. I certainly wouldn’t say – want to say anything that could in any way have an effect on that.



Ryan Browne and Barbara Starr (CNN) explain:

The Pentagon released 198 photos Friday, several of which appear to show injuries suffered by detainees after allegedly experiencing abuse while held in Iraq and Afghanistan during the George W. Bush administration.
Department of Defense spokesperson Cmdr. Gary Ross said that the photos originated from independent criminal investigations into allegations of misconduct by U.S. personnel.
    The investigations substantiated approximately 14 allegations of misconduct while another 42 allegations were proven unsubstantiated, he said.


    Cora Currier (THE INTERCEPT) observes, "The photos are mainly close-up shots of arms, feet, heads, hands, or joints, sometimes showing bruises or scabs. Faces are redacted with black bars. It's not always clear where each of the photos was taken, but they come from internal military investigations and have dates ranging from 2003 to 2006. Sometimes the marks on the prisoners' skin are labeled with tape measuring the size of the wound, or a coin or pen for comparison."


    Tara Copp and Corey Dickstein (STARS & STRIPES) report:

      The Pentagon provided no names or locations of where the abuses occurred, or the corresponding punishments for military personnel who were convicted. However, each photograph contains the corresponding U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command case numbers.
    In one example, identified as an Army Criminal Investigation Command case from 2004, black and white photographs depict a detainee holding a pen to his shin just under an area that appears slightly discolored. According to redacted files obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union through the Freedom of Information Act and presented on its website, The Torture Database, the photos show a detainee from Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq who claimed he was hit in the head with a rifle and kicked in the shin while detained at Al-Adhameyah Palace. CID concluded there was not enough evidence to determine whether the detainee, whose name was redacted, had been abused by U.S. or coalition forces. Investigators did, however, determine the detainee was likely abused by Iraqi Civil Defense troops.


    BBC NEWS notes, "None of the photos released on Friday involved detainees held in Abu Ghraib or at the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon said."


    While that is news, Shane Harris and Nancy A. Youssef (DAILY BEAST) emphasize another aspect:


    But the real story is what the Obama administration decided to keep hidden. Friday’s photos are an innocuous fraction of a much larger cache of 2,000 images, detailing the abuse of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    Some of the most graphic images are said to show American troops posing with corpses. Others depict U.S. forces holding guns to people’s heads or simulating forced sodomization. In one, a large man rides an elderly woman as if she were an animal and whips her with a stick. The mistreatment of corpses and prisoners are widely considered to be violations of the international rules of war.
    [. , ,]
    While the abuse occurred under the administration of George W. Bush, the Obama administration has successfully kept this evidence of possible war crimes buried.


    TELESUR TV offers:

    The photographs released this month represent just 10 percent of the total collection of photos that the American Civil Liberties Union sued to get released 12 years ago. Though President Barack Obama vowed to release all of the torture footage in 2009, he backed out after strong words from the top U.S. commander in Iraq and then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who claimed that knowledge would spur extremism. This time around, the judicary rejected that argument as "too easy and too meaningless," in the words of New York judge Alvin Hellerstein, who ordered the release of several torture videos and photos.


    Eliza Relman (ACLU) explains:

    The photos were released in response to an ACLU lawsuit that we have been litigating for almost 12 years. You can see a few of them in the slideshow to the right. The photos mostly show close-ups of body parts, including arms, legs, and heads, many with injuries. There are also wider shots of prisoners, most of them bound or blindfolded. But what they don’t show is a much bigger story, and the government’s selective release of these photos could mislead the public about the true scope of what happened.
    Six months before media organizations published the notorious Abu Ghraib photos, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request for records, including photos, relating to the abuse and torture of prisoners in U.S. detention centers overseas. Since we sued to enforce our request in 2004, the legal battle has focused in part on a set of some 2,000 pictures relating to detainee maltreatment. The photos released today are part of that set, and they are the first photos the government has released to us in all these years of litigation. (The court hearing our lawsuit ordered the government to release the Abu Ghraib photos in 2004, but the photos were leaked, and posted online by Salon, while the government was appealing the decision.)
    The disclosure of these photos is long overdue, but the photos released today are almost certainly the most innocuous of the 2,000 that were being withheld. From the nearly 6,000 reports, investigations, emails, and other documents the government has been forced to release to us in the course of this litigation (all searchable in our Torture Database), we have found more than 100 documents that either reference photos related to cases of abuse or actually contain photos that were redacted before they got to us. From what we can infer from the descriptions, we know that the most damning evidence of government abuse remains hidden from the public. (This spreadsheet details what we know about the photos we’re still waiting for.)

    The photos still being withheld include those related to the case of a 73-year-old Iraqi woman detained and allegedly sexually abused and assaulted by U.S. soldiers. According to the Army report detailing the incident, the soldiers forced her to "crawl around on all-fours as a 'large man rode' on her,” striking her with a stick and calling her an animal. Other pictures depict an Iraqi teenager bound and standing in the headlights of a truck immediately after his mock execution staged by U.S. soldiers. Another shows the body of Muhamad Husain Kadir, an Iraqi farmer, shot dead at point-blank range by an American soldier while 


    REUTERS quotes the ACLU's Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer stating, "The still-secret pictures are the best evidence of the serious abuses that took place in military detention centers. The government’s selective disclosure risks misleading the public about the true extent of the abuse."  The ACLU's Alex Abdo pens a column for TIME here.  RT speaks with a variety of people and we'll note this section:


    Sarah Flounders from the International Action Center said that “these photos are a reminder of just how criminal the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan is to this day and the amount of time that torture and drastic abuse was used as a matter of policy.”

    “We should remember all the photos released from Abu Ghraib, the incredible revelations of Private Chelsea Manning,” she added.



    Amnesty International has a new podcast where actress Michelle Hendley speaks for Chelsea Manning.




    Meanwhile, in Iraq, will there be a wall or won't there?



  • | PM Haider al-Abadi refuses Operation Command plan to build a security wall around the Iraqi capital.













  • premier Haider al-Abadi refused to build a fence around , stressed that Baghdad is the capital for all Iraqis.



  • So Haider's saying the wall's not going up and others are saying the construction has already begun.


    It's as confusing as this week's Iowa caucus.  Barry Grey (WSWS) explains:


     The Iowa Democratic Party has rejected calls by the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and the state’s leading newspaper, the Des Moines Register, for an audit of the vote in Monday night’s dead-heat contest between Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
    Clinton, in a highly unusual move, went on television late Monday night to effectively declare victory over Sanders, despite the fact that vote counters had her ahead by a razor-thin margin of only 0.2 percent, with a number of key precincts still unaccounted for.
    Preempting the victory speech of Republican Senator Ted Cruz, she thanked Iowans for allowing her to “breathe a sigh of relief,” a reference to her loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 Iowa caucuses and the collapse of her lead over Sanders in the state, which just months before had been polled at more than 50 percent.
    At 2:30 AM Tuesday, the chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, Dr. Andy McGuire, declared Clinton the winner based on results from 1,682 of 1,683 precincts. The Iowa Democratic Party said the final tally of delegate equivalents for all the precincts statewide was 700.59 for Clinton and 696.82 for Sanders—a margin of just 3.77 delegate equivalents.
    At 2:35 AM, Clinton’s Iowa campaign director, Matt Paul, issued a statement saying, “Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa caucus.” Campaigning the following day in New Hampshire, the scene of the first primary election, to be held February 9, Clinton made much of her victory in Iowa. With Sanders poised to score a decisive victory in New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign had feared a possible meltdown in the event of a loss in Iowa.
    Under the Democratic caucus process, a head count is taken at each precinct of the supporters assembled there for each presidential candidate, which is then translated into delegates to a county convention, which, in turn, selects delegates to a statewide convention. That convention then selects national delegates for the competing candidates to the Democratic National Convention, to be held in July of this year in Philadelphia.
    Amid complaints of disorganization at many of the caucus sites, including long lines, delays of up to two hours, and a lack of trained staff and designated chairpersons, the Sanders campaign initially asked to sit down with state party officials to review the paperwork submitted by precinct chairs. Sanders aides told the Des Moines Register that they had found discrepancies between tallies at the precinct level and numbers that were reported to the state party.
    McGuire, whose state organization, like the national party apparatus, is solidly behind Clinton, rejected the request, telling the Register in an interview Tuesday, “These are the final results.” Democrats have never released actual head counts in Iowa caucuses, and McGuire flatly said they would not be released this time either.
    On Thursday, the Register published an editorial headlined, “Something smells in the Democratic Party,” denouncing state party officials for refusing to agree to an audit or release details of the voting. “What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period,” the Register wrote. “Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.”
    The newspaper argued that the results, with “two tenths of 1 percent [separating] Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton,” were “too close not to do a complete audit of results.” It continued: “Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems.”
    The editorial alluded to the fact that ties for six county delegates were decided, in accordance with party caucus rules, by coin flips. Clinton won all six.



    Corruption and Cranky Clinton are never far apart.  And some are starting to panic as a result. Luciana Lopez (REUTERS) reports:


    A prominent Democratic donor worried about the party's chances of winning the presidency emailed dozens of fans of Vice President Joe Biden on Friday, urging them to remain prepared to donate if Biden jumps into the race.
    The donor, Bill Bartmann, cited new polling showing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nearly tied with the Hillary Clinton, eroding the 30-point lead the former secretary of state held at the end of last year. Bartmann and other party insiders are concerned that Sanders, a self-proclaimed Democratic socialist, is too far to the left to win against a Republican in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

    "We cannot afford to lose the White House," Bartmann wrote in the email, seen by Reuters.




    Lastly, community theme posts this week.  On songs, Mike wrote about  "Steve Grand 'Stay'," Rebecca tackled "phoebe snow" singing "If I Can Just Get Through The Night," Trina went with 
    "Carly Simon 'Make Me Feel Something'," Stan went with "PJ Olsson and "Visine"," Betty wrote about "Aretha's 'Sweet Bitter Love'," Ruth remembered "Driving All Night with Joss Stone," Marcia focused on "Donna Summer "There Will Always Be A You"," while Kat went with "Stevie Nicks 'Lady'," Elaine chose "Ashford & Simpson's "High Rise"" and Ann wrote about the Afghan Whigs' 


    iraq
    nancy a. youssef


    Read on ...

    Sunday, January 31, 2016

    When Hypocrite Met Hypocrite . . .


     


    when hypocrite met hypocrite 001



     

    From June 10, 2013, that's "When Hypocrite Met Hypocrite . . ."  C.I. noted:

    Barack says to Chinese President Xi Jinping, "You need to strengthen cyber security in your country."  Xi shoots back, "Oh?  Did you learn that by spying on your country's citizens?"   Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.


    It's amazing how outraged we were when Bully Boy Bush was in the White House but how we've rushed to look the other way when Barack pulled the same illegal crap.


    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"



    Saturday, January 30, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, the US death toll continues, Hillary Clinton continues trying to minimize her support for the Iraq War, and much more.



    The never-ending Iraq War continues.  Today, the US Defense Dept announced:


    Strikes in Iraq
    Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Asad, one strike destroyed two ISIL bomb-making facilities.

    -- Near Baghdadi, one strike destroyed three ISIL rocket rails.

    -- Near Ar Rutbah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

    -- Near Habbaniyah, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL staging area and an ISIL vehicle and suppressed an ISIL fighting position and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Mosul, seven strikes struck five separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed 10 ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL heavy machine guns, and an ISIL weapons cache.

    -- Near Ramadi, one strike destroyed an ISIL command-and-control node and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Tal Afar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL 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 a 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.



    No one questions how these bombings -- this continued war -- makes America safer.  It certainly doesn't make Iraq safer.


    They can talk of how many more US troops to send to Iraq, they just can't talk about what is the point?  Where is the success?  What is the end game?

    Dropping back to Thursday's snapshot:


    The continued talk of sending more US troops to Iraq comes as there's yet another US death in Iraq.
    STARS & STRIPES reports, "A coalition servicemember supporting operations against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria died of a noncombat-related injury in Iraq, the Combined Joint Task Force in charge of Operation Inherent Resolve said in a statement."
    Back in November, Pvt Chrisopher J. Castaneda died at Al Asad Air Base from a "non-combat related incident."
    These are deaths in Barack's endless wars.
    His endless and illegal wars.




    Yesterday, DoD identified the fallen:


    The Department of Defense announce today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
    Sgt. Joseph F. Stifter, 30, of Glendale, California, died Jan. 28, at Al Asad Airbase, Al Anbar Province, Iraq, from wounds suffered when his armored HMMWV was involved in a roll-over accident. The incident is under investigation.
    Stifter was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas.
    For more information related to this release, the media may contact the 1st Infantry Division public affairs office at 785-307-6744.


    Ryan Fonseca (LOS ANGELES TIMES) notes, "Stifter is survived by his wife, daughter, mother and father, the Army statement said."


    Why was he deployed to Iraq?


    All these years later, why are any US troops in Iraq?

    There is no strategy, there is no logic, there is only continued death and destruction.


    Which is why it does matter that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

    In 2002, she was a US Senator and she chose to vote for the Iraq War.

    She chose to support it for years after.

    It's only in 2008 that she can call it a 'mistake' publicly and then, this week, she insisted it was a 'mistake' only because Bully Boy Bush had prosecuted the war wrongly.


    She's a liar.

    As a US Senator, as a First Lady, as a Secretary of State, she's a liar.

    But she thinks she deserves the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

    Other are less likely to agree.  Take Angela Ross of Eugene, Oregon who writes a letter to the editor of THE REGISTER GUARD explaining:


    Many of my women friends favor electing Hillary Clinton as our next president because she’s a woman, but I can’t base my vote on gender.
    Because Clinton voted to support the Iraq war while in the U.S. Senate, I can’t in good conscience vote for her for president. If she’d argued against invading Iraq (as Sen. Bernie Sanders did), it would have shown leadership. Instead, she went along with the Bush-Cheney program.
    [. . .]
    I not only will vote for Sanders, I’ll also work hard participating in the democratic process his campaign engenders. He has 21st century ideas, whereas the ideas of Clinton and other establishment figures are from the 20th century.

    Hillary may have foreign policy experience, but when push came to shove, she showed an extreme lack of judgment on the most important foreign policy decision in a generation. As in 2008 when she was running against Obama, it casts serious doubt on whether she's the Democrats' best presidential nominee.
    Hillary voted for the Iraq War either out of rank political opportunism, because as a prospective presidential candidate, she feared that an anti-war vote would make her look weak. If so, she voted to send thousands to their deaths to further her political career.
    Or she voted for the war out of a sincere belief in the benefits of American military intervention in the Middle East and the good that could come from regime change. If so, her beliefs showed an extreme lack of foreign policy judgment.
    I'm not sure which is worse: voting for a needless and destructive war out of political opportunism or out of poor judgment. In either event, the Iraq War vote remains a big black mark on Hillary's claim that her foreign policy experience makes her the best choice to be Commander in Chief on Day 1.



    Academy Award winning actress Susan Sarandon spoke out against the Iraq War.  While Hillary used support of the Iraq War to increase her own profile, Susan opposed the war and was verbally attacked for that.  She saw a charity event cancelled because she supported peace.

    As Gregory Favre (POYNTER) explained March 28, 2003:

    This week, the folks at United Way of Tampa Bay, in their infinite lack of wisdom, canceled an event because the actor Susan Sarandon was to be the speaker. This decision was made the day after she flashed the peace sign during the Academy Awards telecast.
    How dare she have an opinion, much less express it.
    So the $75 a plate dinner was sacrificed. (In the interest of full disclosure, Sarandon's fee was being paid by the St. Petersburg Times, which is owned by The Poynter Institute, my employer. And my boss, our dean, Karen Dunlap, was scheduled to interview her as part of the program.)
    It had nothing to do with Sarandon's views, a United Way spokesperson said. It's just that her presence would have been divisive.
    But isn't this kind of heavy-handed response to dissent happening all over this country? Just listen to the violence of the language aimed at those who may raise questions. Are we back in the '50s and '60s of the last century?



    And it didn't end there.  Roger Catlin (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reported the following month:

    Last week, she and her partner, Tim Robbins, were told by Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey, a former assistant press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, that he was canceling a 15th anniversary celebration of their film "Bull Durham." Petroskey said the couple's antiwar stance "ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." Earlier, Sarandon's appearance at a United Way event in Florida was canceled.



    Hillary didn't just speak out for the war, she voted for it.  Despite the fact that she was supposedly representing the state of New York which gave her no mandate to support the Iraq War.

    She voted for in direct opposition of the will of the citizens she represented.

    So she attacked democracy and logic to embrace illegal war.


    In an attempt to bury the issue before her planned run for the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Hillary 'addressed' the issue in her ghost-written, poor selling book entitled HARD CHOICES.  Lesley Clark (MCCLATCHY NEWS) noted in 2014:

    Democrats such as Clinton believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat, a belief they said was fed by their own research beyond the word of the Bush White House, all of which later proved to be wrong.
    Clinton said in the book that she’d voted to authorize war “after weighing the evidence and seeking as many opinions as I could inside and outside our government, Democrats and Republicans alike.”


    But as Stephen Zunes (FPIF) pointed out earlier this week:

    “Her vote was simply a mistake.”
    While few Clinton supporters are still willing to argue her support for the war was a good thing, many try to minimize its significance by referring to it as simply a “mistake.” But while it may have been a terrible decision, it was neither an accident nor an aberration from Clinton’s generally hawkish worldview.
    It would have been a “mistake” if Hillary Clinton had pushed the “aye” button when she meant to push the “nay” button. In fact, her decision — by her own admission — was quite conscious.
    The October 2002 war resolution on Iraq wasn’t like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing military force in Vietnam, which was quickly passed as an emergency request by President Lyndon Johnson when there was no time for reflection and debate. By contrast, at the time of the Iraq War authorization, there had been months of public debate on the matter. Clinton had plenty of time to investigate the administration’s claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as to consider the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion.
    Also unlike the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was disingenuously presented as an authorization to retaliate for an alleged attack on U.S. ships, members of Congress recognized that the Iraq resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation. Clinton had met with scores of constituents, arms control analysts, and Middle East scholars who informed her that the war was unnecessary, illegal, and would likely end in disaster.
    But she decided to support going to war anyway. She even rejected the advice of fellow Democratic senator Bob Graham that she read the full National Intelligence Estimate, which would have further challenged some of the Bush administration’s claims justifying the war.

    It was not, therefore, simply a “mistake,” or a momentary lapse of judgment. Indeed, in her own words, she cast her vote “with conviction.”



    She made a decision and it wasn't based on the will of the citizens, it wasn't based on the law, it wasn't based on facts.  She made a decision that started the Iraq War and all the destruction that followed -- all the destruction that continues.

    This is no mere 'mistake.'

    This goes to a serious lack of judgment and leadership.



    Susan Sarandon is supporting Senator Bernie Sanders -- who, in 2002, voted against the Iraq War authorization.  She Tweets:


    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24768997.html#storylink=cpy



  • This campaign is about a political revolution - millions of people standing up and saying enough is enough.
    Embedded image permalink
  • Retweeted
    If we stand together on Monday night, there is nothing we cannot accomplish. :
  • Retweeted
    Brothers and sisters: Now is not the time for thinking small. Now is not the time for the same-old establishment politics.







  • For many Democrats, 2016 is boiling down to a question of do you support a liar (Hillary) or a leader (Bernie)?


    The people of Iowa will be the first to weigh in when they caucus on Monday.


    The people of Iraq get no vote but then they really get no vote in their own country either.

    Haider al-Abadi is prime minister because Barack Obama wants him to be.  The US President made the decision in the summer of 2014 -- not the Iraqi people.

    Before Haider al-Abadi was prime minister of Iraq, the position was held by thug Nouri al-Maliki.

    Nouri was installed as prime minister in 2006 not by the Iraqi people but by Bully Boy Bush.  In 2010, the Iraqi people went to the polls.  One of the things they were deciding was whether to keep or ditch Nouri as prime minister.

    Nouri lost.

    He refused to step down as prime minister.  For eight months, he refused.

    In the end, he didn't have to.


    Why?

    Barack had US officials negotiate a contract, The Erbil Agreement, which went around the will of the Iraqi people and democracy to give Nouri a second term.

    Please note that State of Law lost the 2010 election to Iraqiya.

    Yet, in 2014, when Barack replaced Nouri, he didn't go with a member of Iraqiya but again with the loser State of Law.


    The following Tweet best represents the attitude of the Iraqi officials to the Iraqi people they are supposed to serve.















  • iraq
    Read on ...
    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.