"Isn't Ashley taking on Barack in his bad article? He notes Barack's lying, after all." That's from the e-mail.
No, Ashley's going after Barack on a minor thing.
Yes, Barack lied in his speech where he glorified the Iraq War. That's a given.
But the question of the article is whether or not the US is responsible for Iraq's current condition (which may lead into a civil war).
To slam Bush and avoid calling out Barack?
The current situation was created by Barack. The Iraqi people went to the polls in 2010. They were threatened, they were bullied and still they voted
Barack overruled their votes, he overruled the Iraqi Constitution. He wanted Nouri to have a second term as prime minister so none of it mattered, only Nouri. The will of the voters, the law, it could all be trashed.
Add in that C.I. is aware of the promises that were made to the Kurds by the White House. She's been very kind and only hinted at those. But what the White House promised the Kurds to get them to go along with Nouri was tossed aside by the White House (the same way that Nouri tossed aside the Erbil Agreement). At some point, C.I.'s going to get really pissed and she's going to go into the talks the US had with the KRG in great detail.
But Barack wanted Nouri. This was after Nouri's attack on The Guardian newspaper. This was after Human Rights Watch and the Los Angeles Times' Ned Parker had repeatedly exposed secret prisons Nouri was running. This was after all the broken promises from Nouri (Sahwa, Camp Ashraf, you name it).
There was never any reason to back Nouri.
But the White House did.
Nouri started the current political crisis.
If you're writing about it -- as Ahsley pretends to -- then you write about the White House backing Nouri because that is a huge reason for the current state of affairs in Iraq. Some would argue it is the sole reason.
When Ashley Smith can address that (instead of ignoring it), we might take him seriously.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):