The performance of the press has been abysmal.
Watching CNN and MSNBC last night was painful, as was reading the
Washington Post or the New York Times this morning. The TV coverage was
of a piece with all other 2016 election coverage. Last night FOX, CNN
and MSNBC kept cameras glued on Trump for 40 minutes as he delivered a
bizarre, rambling rant in which he talked about himself, his opponents
and some steaks he was either selling or giving away. As Bernie
made history, CNN kept sending poor John King to its political trivia
JumboTron to relate what various Michigan counties did in primaries or
caucuses eight or 20 years ago. An MSNBC panel consisting of Brian
Williams, Rachel Maddow, Gene Robinson, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chuck
Todd dove right into a discussion of who Hillary might choose as her
running mate; an actual progressive perhaps, given Bernie’s little
showing in Michigan. They agreed it would probably be Elizabeth Warren,
who sat this one out; or Sherrod Brown, the Ohio populist whose wife
they all knew and liked. Really. The segment closed with everyone
sharing a laugh about how mad Brown’s wife would be to hear them flatter
her. The hour ended with Maddow summarizing the state of play this way:
“The frontrunners had a good night.” This morning the Times led the
story this way: “Senator Bernie Sanders’s defeat of Hillary Clinton
prolongs a race she seemed to have locked up, although she won
Mississippi handily.” He sure did. Clinton has been helped in her
quest by her party, by big business, and by top-down endorsements from
progressive lobbies many of which broke members’ hearts to deliver them.
But no one’s helped her more than the media. I know full well this
hasn’t always been true for the Clintons and I also know not all the
help is intentional. But the media helps her in several ways.
The media is convinced they can carry Hillary to the finish line.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, the training of
Iraqi forces continues but with very unimpressive numbers, Gen Lloyd
Austin breaks with the White House over the Kurds, we note the
unresponsive State Dept under Hillary Clinton, and much more.
We have to start with ignorance. Every four years this comes up from someone. It's stupidity.
So, no, Rude Pundit, I will not shut the f*ck up and resign myself to
voting for Hillary-> if Bernie doesn't become the nominee. I will
write in Bernie Sanders so Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC can
count exactly how may votes they lost by running a moderate Republican
neocon warhawk for the presidency. If we reward the DNC for merely not
being the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing racist misogynist
Islamophobes as they bow to the agenda of the one-percent, that's what
they'll continue to be.
I don't know what state Russ is in but it's very likely that Russ will end up voting for Hillary Clinton.
B-b-b-but he says he will write in Bernie's name!!!!!
Stupidity.
Know your state rules.
In most states, if you write in a name and they are not recognized as a
write-in for that election, the vote is 'interpreted.' If you write
down any Democrat -- including dead ones like FDR and JFK -- the
write-in vote goes to that political party.
So if Bernie is not running in the state as a write-in candidate, the
vote will be interpreted as a vote for whomever is heading the
Democratic Party ticket and will be counted as a vote for Hillary
Clinton if she gets the nomination.
You need to stop playing stupid.
We have gone over this every four years.
It's past time for people to learn that a write-in is actually the stupidest thing you can do if you are protesting.
Because you can write in Minnie Mouse or Lady Gaga or Cher and it can be
interpreted to be a vote for someone who is on the ticket -- Cher being
a very public Hillary supporter, a write-in vote for Cher could be
interpreted as a vote for Hillary.
If there is a write-in candidate who will be recognized in your state, by all means vote for them if you'd like to.
But if you're just writing in a name -- Bernie Sanders (if he doesn't
get the nomination) -- grasp that you could very well end up voting for
Hillary (if she gets the nomination) by writing in Bernie's name.
While we're doing voter education, a common mistake eager voters can
make is having one of those paper ballots that you fill in circles on
and filling in all the circles -- or one circle if they're voting
straight ticket (voting for the same political party in all offices) --
and then also writing in the name of Bernie (if he's on the ballot) or
whomever (that is on the ballot). Your vote will likely not be counted
unless someone calls for a recount and then people go through the
'spoiled' votes or 'under votes' by hand.
There are a lot of ways we think we can make our vote 'stronger' that
instead make our vote not count. Those are just of two of them.
If the network news truly cared about voting -- and not about playing
cheap with the coverage (we get the horserace coverage and not real
coverage because it's very cheap to produce and put on the air) -- they
would go over these things for the voter every four years. (Especially
after Florida in 2000 when the entire country was focused on the
spoiled votes and the uncounted ones.)
Again, Russ Belville has written an excellent and strong column but that
last paragraph is 100% wrong in most states and before people think of
writing in a candidate they need to find out their state's rules on
write-ins and how their vote might be interpreted because in most states
it will not count as a vote for the name they write in.
Changing topics . . .
In Iraq, the Iraqi Security Forces,
which include Iraqi Army and Counter-Terrorism Services (CTS)
forces, Kurdish Peshmerga, and various
Sunni
and Shia volunteer
elements, with
the support of
U.S. and Coalition air operations
and advisors and materiel donations, have effectively halted
ISIL's advance
. The enemy is
now
almost exclusively focused on defending his strongholds rather
than projecting combat power.
Additionally, ISIL's
counter-attack capability
has been
reduced
as a
result of battlefield losses, although we see the group conducting deadly terrorist attacks against
Iraqi forces in Anbar and west of Baghdad, and, worryingly, civilian targets -- including in areas far
from its control, in Baghdad and parts of the Shia-populated south.
Austin was one of three generals appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee
to offer testimony in the hearing. The other two were Gen Joseph Vogel (Special Operations Command) and Gen David
Rodriguez (US Africa Command). The Chair
of the Committee is Senator John McCain, the Ranking Member is Senator
Jack Reed.
The quoted section in bold above was from Austin's opening remarks.
The opening remarks are sometimes also referred to as the prepared
remarks or the written testimony because witnesses are supposed to
submit those to the Congressional committees in advance. This allows
members of Congress (and their staff) to pour over that prepared
testimony in advance and to come up with questions to expand on issues
being raised in that testimony or questions on issues that they see are
not being covered in the written statements.
When Secretary of State John Kerry was a Senator, if he headed a
Committee (such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), he would
urge witnesses to summarize (briefly) their pages of written testimony
instead of reading them word for word.
He was the exception.
(And as Secretary of State, he himself reads every word dully and in
monotone, eating up time and dragging each hearing down. Were he the
Chair of a Committee he was testifying before, he would cut himself off
and tell himself to summarize the statement to save time.)
In most hearings, most witnesses still read every word. They may alter a
word or two -- often due to getting lost while reading out loud from
the pages before them -- but they don't usually introduce new ideas.
There's a time limit for these opening statements and non-government
officials will sometimes see the warning light flashing (indicating time
is almost up) and try to quickly summarize the rest of their pages.
But for the most part, people stick to the written testimony when reading word for word.
So this is from Austin's prepared remarks:
We
are making progress militarily
in our efforts to
defeat
ISIL, as demonstrated by the recent
victories in Ramadi and Shaddadi
.
However,
military
success will
be lasting only
if corresponding
political
progress is achieved
in both Iraq and Syria
.
The
Government of Iraq must take the
necessary steps towards greater inclusiveness. Iraq will not remain a unified state long-term
without
the support of the major ethno-sectarian groups.
And we are noting that because it's important and it's something the
State Dept (and that includes Barack's Special Envoy Brett McGurk)
repeatedly forget to address publicly.
The White House continues to supply the Baghdad-based government in Iraq with weapons, US troops and money.
And it never says, "Haider al-Abadi, you've been prime minister since
2014 and we're not seeing any progress on inclusion. If you don't stop
the persecution of the Sunnis, we're not sending use these jets" or
whatever.
Under Barack, the US State Dept doesn't do diplomacy.
While Austin's point is very, very important, he made another remark that was also highly important.
Gen Lloyd Austin: Of note, the Kurish Peshmerga remain critical to
our efforts on the ground in the northern part of the country. They are
irreplaceable and we must do all that we can to support them.
Some readers will agree with him on that, some won't.
Most members of the US Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- will agree with that remark.
Does the White House?
Actually, no, it does not.
Nor does the US State Dept which tries to pretend it's being 'impartial' while toadying to the Baghdad-based government.
That makes the statement important.
You know what else makes it important?
It appears no where in his written testimony.
He wasn't two minutes into his opening remarks when he made this
comment, reading from a version of his opening remarks that was pretty
much word-for-word what he submitted (and what will be in the official
record -- the written testimony is put into the official record).
But that passage?
His comments on the Peshmerga did not appear in the submitted remarks.
Why?
Because the remarks would not have been cleared for submission had the statement appeared in them.
The official position of the administration goes against those remarks -- as is clear in every State Dept press briefing.
Since the fall of 2014, the US military has been on the ground in Iraq
acting as trainers to the Iraqi forces. We're noting that because
Austin testified on the 'progress' there. And maybe some will see it as
progress, but I don't.
According to the general, by the middle of December 2015, the US military had trained "more than 19,000 Iraqi security forces."
19,000 is not impressive for approximately 16 months.
19,000 is not impressive even for a year.
At least 3,000 of the US troops in Iraq (approximately 4,450 US troops
are in Iraq, per the Pentagon -- and this number does not include US
Special Forces which are in Iraq and in combat operations in Iraq) are
present for training.
19,000 is not impressive.
In fact, people should be asking why the number is so low.
Is there resistance to training?
That was the case when the State Dept was put in charge of training. As
Barack's drawdown began (pulling most but not all US troops out of
Iraq), the mission in Iraq was transferred from the Defense Dept to the
State Dept. With State acting as lead, the Iraqi forces did not want
training.
They did not show up for training.
Officials stated publicly that the money would be wasted because they didn't want training.
"Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend
to train -- support the program?" asked US House Rep Gary Ackerman
yesterday. "Interviews with senior Iraqi officials by the Special
Inspector General show utter disdain for the program. When the Iraqis
suggest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for
the United States, I think that might be a clue."
That
was Ackerman's important question yesterday afternoon at the House
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia hearing
on Iraq. US House Rep Steve Chabot is the Chair of the Subcommittee, US
House Rep Gary Ackerman is the Ranking Member. The first panel was the
State Dept's Brooke Darby. The second panel was the Inspector General
for the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
Stuart W. Bowen and SIGIR's Assistant Inspector General for Iraq Glenn
D. Furbish. Chabot had a few comments to make at the start of the
hearing. They often echoed comments made in the November 15th Senate
Armed Services Committee hearing [see the November 15th "Iraq snapshot," the November 16th "Iraq snapshot" and the November 17th "Iraq snapshot" and other community reporting on the hearing included Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally's "The costs (Wally)" and Kat's "Who wanted what?"
]. But while Senators Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Lindsey Graham
made their comments during rounds of questions, Chabot made his as the
start of the hearing in his opening remarks.
Chair
Steve Chabot: Unfortunately, these negotiations failed due to, in my
opinion, mismanagement by this White House. Amazingly, the White House
is now trying to tout the breakdown and lack of agreement as a success
in as much as it has met a promise President Obama made as a candidate.
This blatant politicization calls into question the White House's effort
to secure an extension. Fulfilling a campaign promise at the expense
of American national security is at best strategic neglect and at worse
downright irresponsible. And the White House tacitly admits this in
negotiating an extension in the first place. I fear, however, that our
objective is no longer to ensure that Iraq is stable but merely to
withdraw our forces by the end of this year in order to meet a political
time line. Saying that Iraq is secure, stable and self-reliant -- as
Deputy National Security Advisor Dennis McDonough recently did -- does
not make it so. And to borrow a quote from then-Senator Hillary
Clinton , It requires "the willing suspension of disbelief" to believe
that withdrawing our forces from Iraq at a time when Iranian agents seek
to harm at every turn our country and its allies advances our strategic
interests. Although I understand that Iraq is a sovereign country, I
believe there is much more we could have done to secure a reasonable
troop presence beyond the end of this year.
McCain
was wrongly criticized for not grasping Iraq was a sovereign nation in
some press accounts. Wrongly. McCain grasped that fact and acknowledged
it repeatedly in the hearing. Chabot may have wanted all of that at
the start of the hearing to ensure that he was not misunderstood. In
addition, Chabot noted the "reports of obstruction and noncooperation on
the part of the Department of State during SIGIR's audit. This is
extremely distressing and, to echo the sentiments of several of my
colleagues in the other body which they recently expressed in a letter
to Secretary of State Clinton, the Department of State is legally
obliged to cooperate fully with SIGIR in the execution of its mission;
jurisdictional games are unacceptable." In his opening remarks, the
Ranking Member weighed in on that topic as well.
Ranking
Member Gary Ackerman: He [Bowen] has testified before other bodies of
Congress, he has released written quarterly reports, as well as specific
audits and the message is the same: The program for which the
Department of State officially took responsibility on October 1st is
nearly a text book case of government procurement -- in this case,
foreign assistance -- doesn't buy what we think we're paying for, what
we want and why more money will only make the problem worse. Failed
procurement is not a problem unique to the State Department. And when
it comes to frittering away millions, Foggy Bottom is a rank amateur
compared to the Department of Defense. As our colleagues on the Armed
Services committees have learned, the best of projects with the most
desirable of purposes can go horribly, horribly off-track; and the
hardest thing it seems that any bureaucracy can do is pull the plug on a
failed initiative. How do we know the Police Development Program is
going off-track? Very simple things demonstrate a strong likelihood of
waste and mismanagement. Number one, does the government of Iraq --
whose personnel we intend to train -- support the program? Interviews
with senior Iraqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter
disdain for the program. When the Iraqis suggest that we take our money
and do things instead that are good for the United States, I think that
might be a clue.
Ackerman went on to
note how "the program's objectives remain a mushy bowl of vague
platitudes" and how it had "no comprehensive and detailed plan for
execution, there is no current assessment of Iraqi police force
capability and, perhaps most tellingly, there are no outcome-based
metrics. This is a flashing-red warning light."
And I would argue that what's going on currently is another flashing-red warning light.
19,000 is not an impressive number -- not for the time spent, not for the money spent.
No clear cut plan has been presented to the Congress or, more importantly, to the American people.
When you are spending the people's money, you need to be clear about the goals and the measures.
Dropping back to that December 1, 2011 snapshot:
Brooke Darby was sent before the Committee to spin. I'm not going
to waste much time or space on her testimony and I do feel sorry for her
that she was farmed out on this assignment. "I can't answer that
question," she said when asked anything that hadn't been covered in at
least three other hearings or "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on
it." (The last one to Gary Ackerman's question of if will take the
State Dept 8 years to train the Iraqi police?) I think she did a strong
effort trying to sell the plan but I've heard it all the talking points
before over and over -- and so had the Subcommittee, as was evident by
their reactions -- and there's no point in including too much of it
here.
She referenced her conversation recently
with Adnan al-Asadi, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior. It
was apparently a good conversation and he believes trainers and training
are both needed. Chair Chalbot asked if he denied the comments? (He
is among those dismissive of training in the SIGIR reports that Ranking
Member Ackerman referred to.) Darby testified that he didn't.
[. . .]
From that first panel, we'll note this exchange.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?
Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.
Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?
[long pause]
Ranking
Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after
a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye."
Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.
What Ackerman asked then should be asked today. (Ackerman, a Democrat,
was first elected to the US Congress in 1983 and served to the start of
2013 after deciding not to seek re-election in the 2012 race.)
In the above, you'll see some problems for the State Dept -- at that
time headed by Hillary Clinton. Where you see "[. . .]," I've omitted
parts not having to do with training. If you read the December 1, 2011
snapshot, you'll see the Committee members clearly expressing impatience
and frustration with Hillary Clinton's State Dept not being upfront and
honest.
That's her record.
We documented it here.
We now know that she used a personal server during this time. It is
clearly obvious that she did so to avoid public accountability -- her
e-mails couldn't be searched because they existed on a private server
and not on the State Dept server.
But it wasn't just the public that Hillary showed disdain for, she showed it for Congress.
She refused to supply them with detailed budgets, she refused to supply
them with information, she refused to answer their questions.
A Hillary presidency would be more of the same.
She doesn't feel she's accountable to anyone.
Which is another reason Senator Bernie Sanders' big win in Michigan Tuesday was so amazing and important.
His campaign issued the following today:
MIAMI – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders issued the following statement
tonight after The Associated Press projected that he won Tuesday’s
primary election in Michigan: “I am grateful to the people of Michigan for defying the pundits and
pollsters and giving us their support. This is a critically important
night. We came from 30 points down in Michigan and we’re seeing the same
kind of come-from-behind momentum all across America.
“Not only is Michigan the gateway to the rest of the industrial
Midwest, the results there show that we are a national campaign. We
already have won in the Midwest, New England and the Great Plains and as
more people get to know more about who we are and what our views are
we’re going to do very well.”
The election’s best news thus far is the evidence it offers that a
campaign funded by small donors that stays true to its principles can
beat big money. But we don’t know how much dark and super PAC money
Clinton commands, or its impact on the race. Here’s hoping the next time
she says Wall Street is spending money to defeat her, Bernie points out
that it probably spends as much to elect her and that the whole reason
he’s running is to make it harder for Wall Street to cover its bets. Clinton
began the race for the nomination 40 points up. Yet all these
advantages — money, superdelegates, calendar, shutting down debates and
withholding election results — couldn’t save her. She needed yet more
help and got it from liberal lobbies that are all that remains of the
great grass-roots movements that once drove all our social progress.
Most are led not by grass-roots leaders but by technicians who seek
money, access and career advancement and rely on the same consultants
advising Clinton, Obama and a long list of corporate clients.
It's a great column and demonstrated Bill saw what many were missing.
(Disclosure, I know Bill Curry. And am so impressed that he wrote what
he wrote -- I know him from the Clinton years and would not have
expected him to publicly go against Hillary's campaign. Good for Bill.)
The US Defense Dept announced strikes on Iraq today.
We'll note that in just a second. But first, we're not Judith Miller or
THE NEW YORK TIMES. Just because the US government announces something
doesn't mean it's true. They've been shooting off their mouth in the
last 24 hours. It's probably lies -- but THE TIMES ran with it.
I say probably lies because it's actually a response to Tuesday's hearing and comments a senator made.
Hopefully, we'll have time to cover that this week.
In the meantime, we'll close with the US Defense Dept's announcement on strikes:
Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 11
strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi
government:
-- Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Mosul, four strikes struck
two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL fighting
position, two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL assembly area.
-- Near Ramadi, three strikes
struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed six ISIL fighting
positions, five ISIL vehicles, and an ISIL vehicle-borne bomb.
-- Near Sinjar, a strike destroyed five ISIL fighting positions and two ISIL mortar positions.
-- Near Sultan Abdallah, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical
unit, destroying an ISIL mortar position and an ISIL assembly area and
suppressing an ISIL fighting position.
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.
Hillary Clinton lost the Michigan primary on Tuesday night, and the
state pried open two critical seams holding her candidacy together.
This
isn't a fatal blow, but rather than punctuating a moment of triumph for
Clinton, the state shows that the fight is, at least, pretty far from
over. Clinton was supposed to win Michigan. In the Real Clear Politics polling average in the state, Clinton led by 20 points coming into Tuesday night. And then she lost.
Tuesday, March 9, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, a US general
testifies to Congress and alludes to more US troops going into Iraq, the
denial of human rights abuses in Iraq continues, and much more.
Drew Brooks (FAYETTEVILLE OBSERVER) reports,
"After nine months in Iraq, the 82nd Airborne Division headquarters
will officially end their deployment Wednesday. The final 160
paratroopers are scheduled to be reunited with the families at Fort
Bragg's Green Ramp."
But while good for them, don't mistake that news for less US troops in Iraq.
Ray Howze (LEAF-CHRONICLE) explains, "After casing its colors two weeks ago at Fort Campbell to mark its deployment to Iraq, the 101st Airborne Division has officially assumed command of forces in the country. In
a transfer-of-authority ceremony Tuesday in Baghdad, the 82nd Airborne
Division relinquished command to Maj. Gen. Gary Volesky, commanding
general of the 101st, and the rest of the division headquarters."
The White House keeps insisting things are going well in Iraq. The
President's Special Envoy Brett McGurk keeps blathering on about success
-- though he's really not citing any examples that haven't been cited
for months now.
As a general rule, if you're having success in combat, the departing troops are departing without being replaced by new troops.
Today, the US Defense Dept announced/claimed:
Strikes in Iraq Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government: -- Near Baghdadi, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and
destroyed an ISIL weapons cache, an ISIL staging area and an ISIL rocket
position. -- Near Beiji, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun position. -- Near Fallujah, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb. -- Near Habbaniya, a strike destroyed an ISIL tunnel. -- Near Haditha, a strike destroyed an ISIL supply cache. -- Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL assembly area. -- Near Mosul, three strikes struck two ISIL headquarters and destroyed an ISIL assembly area. -- Near Qayyarah, a strike struck an ISIL-used bridge. -- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL mortar position and two ISIL supply caches. -- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position. -- Near Sultan Abdallah, three strikes struck two separate ISIL
tactical units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles and an ISIL artillery
piece. -- Near Waleed, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL supply cache.
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.
If things are going so well, would the US government have to bomb Iraq daily?
And if things are going so well, why was a Senate Committee told today
that more US troops would be needed in Iraq to take back Mosul from the
Islamic State?
Three generals appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee
today: Gen Joseph Vogel (Special Operations Command), Gen David
Rodriguez (US Africa Command) and Gen Lloyd Austin (CENTCOM). The Chair
of the Committee is Senator John McCain, the Ranking Member is Senator
Jack Reed.
Here's the key exchange.
Senator Mike Rounds: General Austin with regards to the
challenges surrounding the retaking Mosul and Raqqa by December of this
year coming up. You've currently got about 4,000 ground forces, if I'm
correct. Is that enough? Do you have enough to assist in your plans to
retake Mosul and Raqqa? Gen Lloyd Austin: The, uh, the approach that we have used -- and
continue to use, as you know, Senator, to use the indigenous forces in
the operations on the ground and enable those forces with out aieral
fires and other enablers. As we look towards Raqqa and other and Mosul
clearly there will be things that we want to do to, uh, increase the
capability a bit to, uh -- to, uh increase the pace of operations and
that will require some additional capability and we've gone through and
done some analysis to see what types of -- what types of things we need
to provide and that's, uh, we've made those recommendations. Senator Mike Rounds: Could you share those recommendations with this Committee? Gen Lloyd Austin: Uh, no, sir. I would not care to do so because I have just provided those to my -- to my leadership. Senator Mike Rounds: But you have -- you have made those
recommendations and you're waiting on a response to your recommendations
at this time? Gen Lloyd Austin: Yes, sir, it's -- it'll work its way up the chain here. Senator Mike Rounds: If you were allowed to have, uh, more ground
troops what would be the capabilities that you could accomplish? Or
what could you accomplish if you had more individuals on the ground
there Gen Lloyd Austin: We could, uh, develop more, better human
intelligence. We could, uh, we could perhaps provide, uh, uh, more
advise and assist teams at various levels. We could, uh, we could
increase, uh, our assistance in terms of providing help with some
logistical issues and, uh, we could increase some elements of the
special operations footprint. Senator Mike Rounds: Assuming we were successful in retaking both of
those two towns, what then? Clearly, it's broken. So you come back in
and reestablish order and so forth -- when we take them back do we have a
plan in place -- a plan that we want to execute to bring back in a
sense of order to those communities? What does it look like right now
and what part would we play? Gen Lloyd Austin: Uhm, the short answer is "yes," Senator. First of
all, we will -- the Iraqis will take back uh, uh, Mosul and we will take
back -- we will work with the Syrian indigenous forces to take back
Raqqa as well. Uh, as you've seen us do, as they've taken back towns in
Iraq, that includes, uh, Ramadi, Baiji, Tikrit, uh, Sinjar and other
places the effort has been to reestablish order in those places and then
immediately try to uh, uh, do what's necessary to repair damage and
make sure that, uh, that we're taking care of the people and the people
are able to move back in and resume their lives.
So that's Gen Lloyd Austin playing coy and hinting about his
recommendation to send more US troops to Iraq while insisting he can't
really talk about it because it's going up the chain of command.
He's also telling fantasies of liberation where Ramadi and Tikrit were
peacefully liberated, where the homes weren't trashed, the stores and
homes looted and civilians harmed or killed.
He leaves that part out, doesn't he?
He's not the only one in denial. Mustafa Saadoun (AL-MONITOR) reports on the continued denial by the Iraqi government of documented human rights abuses in Iraq:
In its annual report on the situation of human rights in the world in
2015, HRW wrote, “Iraqi security forces and pro-government militias committed possible war crimes
during 2015 in their fight against the extremist group Islamic State …
by unlawfully demolishing buildings in recaptured areas and forcibly
disappearing residents.” HRW added, “Mostly [Shiite] militias fighting [IS] with the support
of the Iraqi government, such as the Badr Brigades, League of the
Righteous, and Hezbollah Brigades, carried out widespread violations of
human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular by
demolishing homes and shops in recaptured Sunni areas.” National Coalition member of parliament Ahmed al-Asadi, who is Shiite and the spokesman for the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Units that is considered part of the Iraqi state, criticized the HRW report, which claimed that the Iraqi security forces and the Popular Mobilization Units committed war crimes. Asadi said, “The information in the HRW report is erroneous and aims
at tarnishing the victories of these factions and acts hypocritically by
accusing the Popular Mobilization Units and avoiding speaking about IS
violations.”
All this time later, we're still supposed to pretend like the Iraqi
government (and its Popular Mobilization Forces) are not committing
human rights abuses?
They are what led to the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq, please remember.
Also don't forget that journalist Ned Parker was targeted -- on Iraqi
television -- for death after he and colleagues at REUTERS reported on
some of the abuses taking place.
He had to leave Iraq for the safety of his colleagues and himself.
And Haider's response to that?
To giggle and mock Ned Parker.
Not to address the threats, not to address the human rights abuses, not even to issue an apology.
The war in Syria and Iraq is no place for
the U.S. We have no clear allies there, leading us to bargain with bad
actors who besmirch our good name. In our single-minded fight against
the Islamic State (ISIS), we look desperate and ineffective, because we
are. Our tunnel vision targeting ISIS has made us blind to the dangers
from our allies of convenience there, and the likelihood that they will
turn on us in future.
The human rights abuses in Iraq will not be paved over by history.
They will be owned by Barack Obama who chose to ignore them under not
one, but two prime ministers. He let Nouri al-Maliki get away with them
and that gave rise to the Islamic State. Then, when even Barack tired
of Nouri, Haider was pushed into the spot as the compliant replacement.
And instead of demanding that Haider address these abuses, the US
government has supplied him with weapons, with training, with financial
support.
And all the while, the Sunnis have remained persecuted.
Barack is on the wrong side of history.
He's also on the wrong side of a huge demographic bulge worldwide.
There will be no happy in the historical review of his two terms.
A US Army jet crashed in Iraq.
Thomas Gibbons-Neff (WASHINGTON POST) reported the crash on Saturday. He even noted that the US military issued a statement saying the crash was under investigation. But a US Army jet crashed in Iraq. And did it get the kind of coverage that should merit?
Meanwhile, the White House issued the following today:
The White House
Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release
March 08, 2016
Readout of Vice President Biden’s Call with Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi of Iraq
The Vice President spoke today with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider
Al-Abadi. The Vice President offered his condolences for Sunday's brutal
attack in al-Hillah, and both leaders reaffirmed their joint commitment
to defeat the scourge of ISIL. The Vice President also reviewed U.S.
efforts to help Iraq secure additional regional and international
assistance for stabilization and reconstruction in Ramadi and other
areas liberated from ISIL.
That's the question the Jennifer Lopez series floated in Thursday's episode.
Woz and Harly were supposed to pick up an important package.
It was actually supposed to be Woz and Donnie.
But Donnie had to take testimony.
He said/claimed.
And Harley was guilting Woz into letting her tag along, saying if they were really partners . . .
Of course, she was wearing a wire and taping everything.
So they get to the drop off and it's not as planned.
Why?
The package is a man in a trunk.
Who is he?
Why was he kidnapped?
While Harley is talking to him in a safe location -- all of being recorded -- Woz is off to Donnie's work and causing a scene as he wants to know what Donnie got him into.
If you haven't watched, Woz is the head of the dirty police unit Harley works on.
Donnie is his down-low lover -- which, by the way, the FBI now knows, having overheard.
By the way, division in the FBI team -- Robert Stahl's buring Harley's ex while his partner refused to go along (she doesn't know the whole story). He told her to join the ACLU if she wants to save puppies.
Instead, she went to their boss and Harley's ex is getting out of prison. (The same ex who beat her repeatedly for years.)
Saturday, March 5, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, Moqtada stages
another rally, Hillary Clinton loses another state, trash emerges to
insist the party must rally around Crooked Clinton, and much more.
Tuesday,
War Hawk Hillary Clinton managed to dupe enough people to win the
Democratic Party primary in seven out of eleven states. Or, as one
friend put it, supposed Ms. Inevitable managed to lose four states to
Senator Bernie Sanders: Oklahoma, Vermont, Colorado and Minnesota.
Oklahoma must have been especially painful for Hillary to lose. In
2008, Hillary carried Oklahoma. She won with 55% of the voters to
Barack's 31%.
But Tuesday?
Bernie won the state by 51%.
From 55% in 2008, Hillary's support in Oklahoma dropped to 41.5%.
Ms. Inevitable is far, far from Ms. Incredible.
A point underscored today when Sanders defeated her in Kansas.
And her inability to close the deal is a reality a number of people have
noted this week on Twitter because Incredible People don't back illegal
wars.
World Peace Movement
#BernieSanders#FeelTheBern
Sen. Sanders voted against IRAQ War, judgement is everything.
But you can't have a rush of reality without a backlash of whoring.
Enter the courtesan.
Michelle Manning Barrish.
Is she know for anything besides who she slept with?
Supposedly, she's an activist.
I've been speaking out against the Iraq War since February 2003.
I never heard of her doing any activism. (MOVEON commercials are not activism.)
But then I don't consider sleeping with rich men to be radical action.
Although maybe big divorce settlements count as one way of
redistributing the wealth?
She shows up at -- where else -- THE HUFFINGTON POST to insist
that she's always been against the Iraq War, to toss around mentions of
her "brother" repeatedly (is she trying to hide behind him) and insist
that when Hillary is crowned the nominee, everyone must unite behind
her.
Let's be really clear on that.
Michelle Manning Barish?
She's not running a damn thing.
She needs to sit her tired ass down already.
No one asked her.
Your vote is your vote.
It's not her vote.
No one needs anyone to tell them how to vote -- and when someone tries
to tell you how to vote, they need to be told to mind their own damn
business.
Your vote belongs to you.
You can use it to vote for Hillary, to vote for Donald Trump, to vote for Jerry White, to vote for whomever.
You can use your vote by not voting because you don't feel anyone has earned your vote.
If Michelle wants to stick to why she's supporting Hillaary, that's fine.
But when she thinks she has any right to tell anyone else how to vote?
She needs to grasp that if we need to know where to get vast amounts of collagen shot into our lips, then she's out go to.
But to know how to vote?
No.
You have to be at least 18 to vote in the United States. Which means every voter in the US is an adult.
No adult needs to be told how to vote.
Michelle insists:
When you are faced with making many decisions, you aren't going to
always be right. When you don't have anything important to decide on, or
much at all, your averages of not making mistakes improves greatly,
because you didn't have anything to decide on in the first place. These
other candidates can shout their "positions" from the rooftops with
conviction and great certainty, but until they have actually had to
create policy or negotiate a treaty with a world leader...their words
aren't worth anything. They are merely opinions and soundbites. Hillary Clinton has had to make the tough decisions. I want someone
tough sitting across the table from Vladimir Putin. I want someone who
understands the economy to make decisions about Wall Street. I want
someone who has always been a champion for Reproductive Rights, to fight
hard, and not let the Republican party play the games they have played
throughout the entire Obama presidency.
What tough decisions has Hillary made?
To vote for war?
Yeah.
To change her hair constantly?
Yeah.
What else?
To attack women who accuse her husband of something?
Yeah.
I'm not getting what else she's done.
I'm also not getting how she has any experience on the economy.
She's also not been a champion of reproductive rights.
Stop whoring, Michelle, stop whoring.
Mid '00s found her being rightly criticized for her move away from support of abortion.
So just stop whoring, Michelle.
You're welcome to lie to yourself all you want but when you lie to others, you just embarrass yourself.
For many of us, we will never vote for Hillary.
She's a War Hawk.
If the Iraq vote didn't make it clear, her pushing for war on Libya did.
Her response is always "war!"
Me personally? I could vote for Bernie if he got the nomination. I
could vote for Cynthia McKinney if she ran. I could vote for Michael
Bloomberg if he ran. There are many people who could win my vote.
Hillary is not one of them.
And her support of the Iraq War is no minor thing.
And I'm not some hardened and unfeeling person, I can cry like a baby watching an episode of FIX IT AND FINISH IT where Antonio Sabato Jr.
and crew are helping some mother with a special needs child get the
improvements she needs for her child to live comfortably in their home.
But I'm not such a softie that I'll forget what Hillary has done or
overlook the destruction her support of war has dealt to so many
civilians.
Mid-week, ALL IRAQ NEWS reported Baghdad Operations Control has announced they will be providing security for the rally.
Of course, they didn't protect real protesters, not from December 2011
through Janaury 2014, when actual protests took place in Baghdad.
Instead, they harassed the press (to keep them from covering the
protests), they harassed and attacked the protesters, followed them home
to intimidate them, etc.
But Moqtada wasn't protesting, he was backing up Haider's call for reform.
Which might also explain why Moqtada was allowed to send his armed militia into the streets of Baghdad.
Now: Heavily armed Sadr Shiite militants marching towards #Baghdad Green Zone which hosts the #USA embassy.. #Iraq
AP notes thousands gathered and that Moqtada urged peace. Lars Hauch (MEE) reports: His
speech wasn’t opposing the government in general though. In fact, Sadr
called for support for the politics of Haider al-Abadi, the current
prime minister who has found himself under pressure from pro-Iranian
politicians and militia leaders who confront his reform plans.
Meanwhile, the US government continued bombing Iraq with the US Defense Dept announcing today:
Strikes in Iraq Ground attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted
12 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s
government: -- Near Al Baghdadi, a strike destroyed an ISIL rocket rail and an ISIL mortar position. -- Near Albu Hayat, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb. -- Near Fallujah, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL bed down location. -- Near Kisik, two strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical
units and destroyed two ISIL vehicles, two ISIL mortar positions, four
ISIL vehicle bombs, and seven ISIL fighting positions. -- Near Mosul, a strike destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun position. -- Near Qayyarah, a strike destroyed an ISIL rocket position. -- Near Ramadi, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and
destroyed an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL staging area, an ISIL
tunnel, and an ISIL front end loader. -- Near Sinjar, a strike destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun position. -- Near Tal Afar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL assembly area. 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.
#IRAQ شمرية العراق
Left American
CaliforniaForBernie
Susan Maylone
Rami
