BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
IT'S OFFICIAL, FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O IS A BITCH.
HE CAN'T SHUT UP, HE HAS TO WEIGH IN ON EVERYTHING.
LITTLE PRINCESS MUST HAVE BEEN PROTECTED IN INDONESIA -- MAYBE HIS NANNY DRESSED HIM AS A GIRL -- BECAUSE SOMEONE WHO CAN'T STOP FLAPPING THEIR GUMS TENDS TO GET THE S**T KICKED OUT OF THEM IN SCHOOL -- REPEATEDLY.
THIS OBVIOUSLY NEVER HAPPENED TO BARRY O WHICH IS HOW HE CAME TO WEIGH IN ON THE ISSUE OF SCOTLAND AND HOW HE'S AGAINST THEIR INDEPENDENCE.
HE'S NOT A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTRY, SO WHY DOESN'T HE JUST SHUT THE F**K UP?
SERIOUSLY.
THE LITTLE BITCH NEEDS TO LEARN THE WORLD DOESN'T NEED HIS THOUGHTS ON SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE OR ON WHAT KANYE DID OR THIS OR THAT.
HE WAS ELECTED TO DO A JOB.
HE'S MADE TIME FOR EVERYTHING BUT THAT.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
This afternoon in Florida, US President Barack Obama declared, "The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists."
Barack was attempting to push back against remarks Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, made yesterday when he and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Dempsey made comments such at this:
Gen Martin Dempsey: At this juncture, our advisors are intended to help the Iraqis develop a mindset for the offensive and the actions to match it. Our military advisors will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support, and coordinate Coalition contributions. To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President.
In response to that and other remarks yesterday, Barack declared today, "The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. They will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists."
I don't understand how he can say that.
US troops are in Iraq. Iraq War veteran J.R. Salzman Tweeted:
J.R. Salzman
Why does POTUS keep saying we won't have combat troops in Iraq when
we already do, and why won't the media call him out on it? Come on.
Why indeed? They're there and they have a combat mission in Iraq.
Dempsey acknowledged that in the hearing yesterday.
Gen Martin Dempsey: First of all, I think everyone should be aware when we talk about "combat forces," that's all we grow. When we bring a young man or woman in the military, they come in to be a combat soldier or a combat Marine or a combat -- We don't bring them in to be anything else other than combat capable. But that's different than how we use them. And in the case of our contributions in Iraq right now, the airmen, as the Chair -- as the Ranking Member mentioned, are very much in a combat role.
That is a combat role.
And it sounded like one in Barack's speech today when Barack stated, "So, last month, I gave the order for our military to begin taking targeted action against ISIL. And since then, our brave pilot and crews -- with your help -- have conducted more than 160 airstrikes against these terrorists. Because of your efforts, we’ve been able to protect our personnel and our facilities, and kill ISIL fighters, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. They’ve helped our partners on the ground break ISIL sieges, helped rescue civilians cornered on a mountain, helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children."
It sounds like combat because it is combat.
US Senator Kelly Ayotte Tweeted:
POTUS said today our troops in Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. What do you call dropping bombs from planes?
Trevor Timm Tweeted:
-
Obama may "forward deploy" "military advisers" already on the ground in Iraq. Don't call them ground troops though. https://news.yahoo.com/obama-could-deploy-u-military-advisers-forward-positions-184616561.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter …
Trevor Timm
And The Atlantic's David W. Brown offers:
No
troops will be sent to Iraq, but troops might be forward deployed to
Iraq. Glad that's settled. Next issue: 2 and 2. Maybe 4, maybe 22.
Dempsey's remarks appears to have stripped the pretense off what's taking place in Iraq.
Mark Landler and Jeremy W. Peters (New York Times) note:
The
general’s statement lays bare the challenge the president will face in
selling an expanded military campaign to a war-weary American public.
Mr. Obama, seeking to allay fears of another Iraq war, has promised that
American ground troops will not be involved in fighting the Islamic
State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. In a sign of the administration’s
mixed message, the president pointedly did not call it a war, while his
advisers later did.
But
the realities of a prolonged campaign, General Dempsey said, could make
such a hands-off approach untenable, particularly if the battle against
the militants moves into densely populated cities where airstrikes are
less effective and the chances of civilian casualties are much higher.
His candid testimony, hours before a divided House of Representatives
began debating whether to approve Mr. Obama’s request for authority to
arm the Syrian rebels, drew expressions of concern from antiwar groups
and could further complicate the political dynamic for the president.
All Iraq News adds:
The U.S. already has hundreds of advisors on the ground in Iraq. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told the Senate panel he cannot rule out combat troops returning to Iraq, albeit in a limited role.
"If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific (militant) targets, I will recommend that to the president," Dempsey said.
Such actions, he added, would be considered "close combat advising."
President Barack Obama has maintained U.S. combat troops would not be returning to the country. U.S. ground troops left the country in 2011 after nine years.
"At this point, (the president's) stated policy is we will not have US ground forces in direct combat," Dempsey said. "But he has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis."
As David Jackson (USA Today) notes, "President Obama doubled down Wednesday on an increasingly questioned pledge."
Barack's push back today was especially surprising since he was aware of what Dempsey was going to say and knew of the opening remarks. Jim Acosta and Kevin Liptak (CNN) note the White House was briefed on Dempsey's opening claim:
Gen Martin Dempsey: At this juncture, our advisors are intended to help the Iraqis develop a mindset for the offensive and the actions to match it. Our military advisors will help the Iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support, and coordinate Coalition contributions. To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisors should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the President.
Briefed ahead of time. Elaine noted it at her site, we noted it in the snapshot, these were prepared remarks, submitted in writing before the hearing began. Dempsey read from the written statement word for word. These prepared remarks went around the administration -- including to the White House -- before they were allowed to be submitted to Congress.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Truth?"
No comments:
Post a Comment