CRANKY CLINTON TOOK TO THE UNITED NATIONS TODAY TO INSIST SHE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG AND BESIDES SHE WAS JUST TRYING TO DO WHAT WAS "CONVENIENT" FOR HER.
NEVER MIND WHAT WAS BEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT OR THE COUNTRY.
IT WAS ALL ABOUT HER PERSONAL CONVENIENCE.
FUNNY, WHEN SHE WAS SWORN IN, THERE WAS NO TALK OF 'DOING THE JOB TO THE BEST OF MY PERSONAL CONVENIENCE.'
THERE WAS A CRYING BABY.
THE WOMAN WHO WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH ABOUT HER JOB AS SECRETARY OF STATE TO DO WHAT WAS NEEDED, ONLY WHAT WAS CONVENIENT. WHAT A SELLING POINT FOR HER CAMPAIGN.
AND FOR NOW?
CRANKY CLINTON ANNOUNCED TODAY SHE WOULD NOT BE TURNING OVER HER SERVERS.
IN OTHER WORDS, SHE'S NOT BEING OPEN, SHE'S NOT BEING HONEST BUT SHE WANTS YOUR VOTE SO SHE CAN TAKE HER CORRUPTION TO THE TOP!
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Prensa Latina reports, "US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey said today that the self proclaimed Islamic State for Syria and Iraq, ISIS will be defeated at the same time that the local government increases is offensive against Tikrit and Al-Anbar."
Is that what he said?
If that's what he said, he's an idiot.
As many observers have pointed out -- to stick only with Tikrit -- Iraq grabbing control of it from the Islamic State doesn't matter as much as what happens the day after liberation or 'liberation.'
Is there a reason for Sunnis to buy in? A reason for them to feel the government out of Baghdad is a representative one.
Dempsey usually makes remarks about the need for a political solution.
Maybe he forgot.
Or maybe Prensa Latina got it wrong.
Robert Burns (AP) reports, "Before arriving in the Iraqi capital, Dempsey said that he wanted to press the Shiite-dominated government to deliver on its promise to reconcile with the Sunni minority and to explain how it intends to balance its relations with Iran."
It's a shame that the Pentagon failed to release a transcript of the press conference.
It might have cleared up some errors.
Might have even mitigated some of the reactions to the press briefing.
At Rudaw's report on Dempsey's remarks at the press conference, the most popular reader comment is this:
They're spinning the story, what's happened is the Iranians have instructed Baghdad to get rid of the Americans, all of it, the air support, bases, training etc. and now the Americans are doing damage control, trying to save face. Fist they claimed Baghdad is not requesting more air support, now they're claiming that they want to "avoid civilian casualties", they have no such concerns in Syria or Yemen or Afghanistan. A month ago the Pentagon and the administration declared that they were planing to send additional advisers, special forces and around 4000 marines to Iraq, this past week they've changed their tone completely, even today Dempsey said Iraq "doesn't need" more US trainers or advisories.
Before anymore US troops are sent to Iraq, it would be good to know how the missing is seen in the region and in Iraq. Not how it's seen by the US appointed and anointed rulers in Iraq, but by the people.
In America, some are saying the people have spoken. For example, Andrew Tilghman (Military Times) writes, "According to a Rasmussen poll in early February, 52 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should send 'send combat troops back to Iraq as part of an international coalition to fight ISIS.' That's up from 48 percent in October. Meanwhile, the percentage of those opposed fell 8 points, to 28 percent from 36 percent in October."
A few problems.
"International coalition" isn't defined.
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, their polling had Mitt Romney winning the 2012 election.
For those who've forgotten, Mitt Romney lost that election to Barack Obama.
Whatever the actual figure, I don't doubt that it's increased since October.
The US media's been selling fear non-stop since then.
It's attempted to stir up the public. It's featured 'talkers' who've predicted mayhem on the streets of America from the Islamic State despite the fact that it's really not possible.
Homegrown terrorists launching an attack on US soil?
It's even possible that they might be terrorists who are sympathetic to the Islamic State.
But the Islamic State having fighters to spare, fighters who can easily cross into the US?
Not as simple as the talkers would insist.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Afghan Girls Need Your Support Today (Feminist Maj..."
"Everybody wants to play Empire (remember, it's not..."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's Camp..."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary Teache..."
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's E-ma..."
"International Women’s Day 2015 Let’s Save Our Wome..."
"No to the racist backlash over Isis - former Guant..."
"The so-called Good Wife"
"When does it ever end?"
"Oh, those scandals"
"Left to choke on her own words"
"Hillary plots response"
"Liar James Carville"
"Fox really has nothing for me this summer"
"Oh, Hillary, buy a clue"
"Hillary tries to figure out what to say"
"hillary needs to get honest"
"How Hillary intends to fight back on the scandal"
"THIS JUST IN! HILLARY HAS A PLAN!"