Even her friends can't help her

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

IN AN OPEN MEMO, CRANKY CLINTON'S FRIENDS ATTEMPT AN INTERVENTION, TELLING HER THAT SHE IS THE PROBLEM.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY DISMISSED THE CONCERNS OF HER FRIENDS AND INSISTED SHE DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM.

"I AM JUST FINE!" SHE SNARLED.  "NO, NOT FINE! I AM PERFECT! I AM PERFECTION! I AM ALL I NEED TO BE, ALL ANYONE NEEDS TO BE! AND I'LL BITCH SLAP ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE."

SINGING THE LATE AMY WINEHOUSE'S BIGGEST HIT '"THEY TRY TO MAKE ME GO TO REHAB, I SAID NO-NO-NO," CRANKY SHOOK HER TIRED CABOOSE AND EXITED THE BUILDING.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

On the topic of politicians, let's drop back to  Tuesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  The Committee Chair is Senator John McCain and the Ranking Member is Senator Jack Reed.  Appearing before the Committee were Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

We've noted Senators Joe Donnelly, Kelly Ayotte and Joe Manchin in Wednesday's snapshot.  We're going to note the line of questioning from two other senators today.  Senator Martin Heinrich had some important and basic questions.


Senator Martin Heinrich: Let me start by saying that, 'surge' or no 'surge,' I think it's pretty clear, at least to my constituents, that the Iraq War remains one of the greatest US foreign policy mistakes of the last century and one that I've hoped we've learned a few lessons from.  I want to follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what Senator Hirono raised.  One lesson I feel that we should have learned by now is that eliminating one terrible Middle Eastern dictator can too often lead to even more brutal influences filling the leadership vacuum.  We've seen that play out too many times.  We've seen that to some extent in both Iraq and Libya.  Should we be concerned that in Syria, a post-Assad reality could create a vacuum that ISIL is far better positioned to fill than any of the other regional forces?  I'm not sure we should be --  I think we should be almost as concerned with forces like al Nusra Front [a splinter of al Qaeda which is operating in Syria].  And if Assad does fall, shouldn't we have more than discussions on the table?  Shouldn't we have a plan to make sure that some amount of governance remains, particularly in Damascus?

Secretary Ash Carter:  Uh, well, yes, we should and we do.  That is our strategy with respect to the political transition.  Now, uh, I've -- for reasons that are easy to understand, our influence with Bashar al Assad, our -- that is US -- influence is not great and so we are trying to influence those who influence him to remove himself, uh, from the government of, uh, Damascus while keeping intact the structures of governance for the very reasons that you adduce which is we know what happens in these Middle Eastern countries when the structures of government disintegrate and we would like to not see that happen in Syria even though we know that the persistence of Assad at the helm in Damascus  is in fact a fuel for ISIS and others who are fighting him so he needs to go to remove that fuel but we don't want to see the structures of governance go at the same time.  And that is the challenge but that is what we're trying to achieve.


Senator Martin Heinrich:  Well I think that's certainly the right goal, I just want to make sure we're prepared for that because we've sort of missed that goal in the past and Syria is an enormous country and if we saw it lose its governance capability, the implications for the region and the entire world would be enormous.  Secretary Carter, as you mentioned as well, to be successful on the ground against ISIL, the fight needs to be led by local, capable ground forces.  I don't think we should give in to impatience.  These should not be western forces.  These should not be American forces.  We've certainly heard that from our partners in places like Jordan.  This means we need to place a great deal of importance on training motivated and reliable partners.  And you've gone a little bit over the small number of Iraqi security forces recruited, what those challenges are, the bottle neck related to the vetting process but are there other factors you would attribute for the lack of trainees?  And I guess one of the questions I have related to that is what steps, in addition to the steps that you're taking, what steps is the Iraqi government taking to address this shortfall in order to meet those training targets.we'd like to see?

Secretary Ash Carter:  Uh, uh, thank you, Senator.  I think in Iraq, the principle limiting factor on Sunni trainees -- which is one of our focus -- our focuses -- has been their belief that the government in Baghdad was not fully supportive of them.  That is the challenge before Prime Minister Abadi.  He says he wants to do that and, uh, that's critical because only Sunnis can take back Anbar [Province], only Sunnis can govern Anbar when it's all over.  So if we are going to wrest Anbar from the likes of ISIL which we must do, we must have Sunnis on our side. And so Abadi is saying all the right things, as the Chairman noted.  We're trying to support him in doing all the right things. And --

Senator Martin Henirich: Mr. Secretary, I agree with you wholeheartedly in your analysis.  I guess my concern is is Abadi doing enough to begin to generate confidence in the Sunni population in that region?

Secretary Ash Carter: Uh, I think he is doing everything he personally can.  Uh, I think he is challenged in Baghdad by others who would have it the old way, the sectarian way.  And so he's not able to make everything happen when and as he says.  And we've had some delays and some frustrations as a result of that.  I think things are getting better.  We are getting more trainees.  It was noted earlier that there is some confidence among Sunni tribes that we will help them train, equip them, support them and get them back in the fight -- that there's a future for them  -- not even withstanding the difficulties of multi-sectarianism governance in Iraq.  That's the path we're on and, in the meantime, just to get back to something that Senator [Mike] Rounds said, I-I-I think and I-I said this before, I just want to restate it.  We need to take action to defend ourselves against ISIL, not just in Iraq and Syria, but elsewhere particularly foreign fighters even as we defeat them from the place from which they arose.  They have metastasized now, they aspire to be a global network and we have to fight them where they are.  We can't wait for that.  We need to do that -- and by the way, we do it every day.

Senator Martin Heinrich:  Secretary --

Secretary Ash Carter:  We did that just this past weekend.

Senator Martin Heinrich (Con't):  -- I want to leave you with one last question.  It's a very general one.  You may have seen the POLITICO article from a couple of days ago that examined what it called the "Da-aesh effect" -- and it's sort of a modern example of the ancient proverb that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Whether it's Hammas or al Nusra or Iran, there are a number of entities that may be enemies to the US, certainly are enemies of our allies but currently share the same opposition to ISIL or Da'aesh.  What are your thoughts on that observation generally and wouldn't you agree that it's that reality that is part of the reason why this is such  a complicated nut to crack.


Secretary Ash Carter:  That is the reason why it's so complicated and, again, sectarianism is what brought us to this point so we are willing to -- and we are -- and have  supported elements of the Iraqi security forces that have a very large Shis composition to them but if and only if they're under the direction and control of the government of Iraq.  And there are Shia forces in Iraq that are not under the direction and control and we will not support them because that's sectarianism, that sectarian civil war.  We know what leads down that road and we're trying to stop Iraq from going down that road.



The hearing was Tuesday.  Wednesday this exchange took place at the State Dept press briefing moderated by Mark Toner:


MR TONER: Sure thing, Said. Go ahead.


QUESTION: The fight against ISIS?


MR TONER: The fight against ISIS.


QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


MR TONER: Sure.


QUESTION: I mean, now that we’ve had time --


MR TONER: Wouldn’t be a briefing without some discussion on --


QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


MR TONER: No, go ahead. I’m sorry.


QUESTION: No, I just wanted to follow up on some of the things that John said yesterday --


MR TONER: Yep.


QUESTION: -- but I (inaudible). He cited that when there is a – basically, implicitly, when there is a will to fight, such as the Peshmerga and the north fighting ISIS and the Kurdish fighters also in the north of Syria fighting ISIS, then we can see the outcome on the ground, that ISIS can be pushed back. Is the implicit suggestion there that the Iraqi army is not fighting or will not fight?


MR TONER: Not at all. We’ve long said that some of these local fighters have been absolutely integral to combating ISIL. But everything we do is through the Iraqi military and the Iraqi Government, and all the equipping and supplying that we do is conducted through them and with their concurrence. So there’s a recognition, I think, that this needs to be locally owned, if you will; that we need to really build the capacity of local forces, and that includes the Iraqi military itself, to be able to push back and combat ISIL.


QUESTION: Would that implicitly suggest that you – maybe you ought to give direct aid to the Peshmerga directly – heavy equipment, I mean. Not --


MR TONER: Yeah.


QUESTION: -- just rifles and guns and so on, but things like tanks and other battlefield equipment, heavy duty that they can use.



MR TONER: Well, again, we have been providing some assistance to the Peshmerga, again, through the Iraqi Government. We feel like that’s getting into their hands expeditiously. We don’t feel like there’s a delay mechanism or anything. We feel like that the system currently is working pretty well in terms of getting them what they need. In terms of additional support, obviously, we’re always looking at that, but nothing to announce.



In his exchange with Senator Kelly Ayotte on Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter made clear the US was directly arming the Kurds (as were the Germans and others, Carter also made clear).

Why does the State Dept not know this?

How stupid and uniformed is the administration that one group doesn't talk to the other and that a spokesperson does not know what's in public testimony?

This was what Senator Joni Ernst started with in her line of questioning, was the US government arming the Kurds as Ayotte had asked and as Carter had replied.  His only clarification was that they were providing these arms with the consent of the Iraqi government out of Baghdad.

But with that clarification, he again insisted that they were doing this.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Sen. Murray Fights to Protect Services for Homeles..."
"The continued non-progress in Iraq"
"i use youtube"
"I use YouTube"
"I use YouTube for . . ."
"I watch YouTube"
"I don't use YouTube that much because . . ."
"I use YouTube"
"I use YouTube for . . ."
"I use YouTube for"
"YouTube use for me . . ."
"I use YouTube for . . ."
"On this one, we blame the veterans"
"ON THIS ONE, WE BLAME THE VETERANS!"

On this one, we blame the veterans

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

$100,000  TO SPEAK?

WE BLAME THE VETERANS.


REGARDLESS OF YOUR POLITICS, WHAT BOOB PAYS THE MAN BEHIND "STRATEGERY"  AND "MISUNDERESTMATED" TO SPEAK PUBLICLY?


AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU BUY A HYUNDAI, YOU REALLY HAVE NO ONE BUT YOURSELF TO BLAME.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Senator Joe Donnelly: I just got back from Iraq with Senator [Tim] Kaine who led our trip and one of the meetings we had was with a number of the Sunni tribal leaders and some of them were from the Haditha area and in talking to them they have said, "We have stood with you. We have faith with you.  But we have people who are now eating grass in our town.  We have no food.  We have no supplies.  And we have been told that the only airlifts that can come in would be on military transport.  Is there anything you can do to help feed our people?"  And so, I wanted to put that before you to see if there's something we can do to be of aid to these individuals.



Donnelly was speaking Tuesday at the Senate Armed Services Committee.  The Committee Chair is Senator John McCain and the Ranking Member is Senator Jack Reed.  Appearing before the Committee were Gen Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

Donnelly states that he was told, in Haditha, food resources were so low that civilians were eating grass.

Though only in his second year in the US Senate, Donnelly has not racked up  a reputation for lying or misleading.

So it's fairly safe to assume this is what he was told.

Where's the outcry?

We drive our Bitch Moan and Whine vehicles all over the globe over this or that artifact destroyed in Iraq but you have civilians forced to eat grass and no one cares enough to make this a lead story?





Secretary Ash Carter: Well, uh, I'll say something about that and ask the Chairman if he wants to add.  First of all, I want to thank you, Senator Donnelly, also Senator Kaine for traveling there.  We appreciate it.  And on behalf of the 3,550 members of our armed forces that are in Iraq conducting this fight, thank you for taking the time to go visit them this Fourth of July weekend.  The humanitarian situation is yet another tragic consequence of what is going on with ISIL.  It remains one of the coalition's, uhm, uh, uh, efforts as I indicated in my opening statement.  To relieve the humanitarian, that's very difficult to do when there is not order and control on the ground.  And so, uh, this is why we need to get a security situation that's stable, ground forces that are capable of hol- seizing territory, holding territory and governing.  That's the only way to get the humanitarian situation turned around -- either in Iraq or in Syria.  It's very sad.  It's tragic.  And, uh, in the case of Iraq -- as has been noted --  uh, something brought about by the re-emergence of sectarianism in a really tragic way.  Chairman, you want to add anything?

Gen Martin Dempsey:  One of the reasons we went to [al-] Taqaddum Air Base [in Anbar Province] -- also locally called Habbaniyah -- is to advise and assist in the Anbar operations center which is where these kind of issues should actually migrate through.  And it's -- You should be interested to know the Iraqis have the capabilities to address that.  They have C-130J [Lockheed Martin transport aircraft], you know state of the art, uhm-uhm -- 

Senator Joe Donnelly:  I know they do, but they're not.

Gen Martin Dempsey:  Yeah, well we'll pass it to the guy who's embedded with -- 


Senator Joe Donnelly:  And you know, when you're hungry?  You're stomach doesn't tell you you want Iraqi food or US food, you just want help.  And one of the bonds created with these tribal leaders is they said, "We've always felt that we could count on you."  


Dempsey was a bit of a smart ass and there's no way to pretty that up.

If you caught the tone of, "Yeah, well we'll pass it to the guy," you grasped what a smart ass what he was being.

How nice for him that hearing of the starvation of others is so removed from anything he's ever experienced that he can make light of it, that he can mock it.

How very nice for him.

For those who don't remember how Barack kicked off the latest stage of the never-ending Iraq War, the Yazidis were trapped on Mount Sinjar and without food.

An air drop of humanitarian items was something we advocated for here.

Some people thought that the anti-war thing to do was to ridicule the trapped Yazidis.

All that did was drive people away.

It's not funny when people are in need, when they're starving.

Unless you're Dempsey or some other smart ass.

But with the Yazidis on Mt. Sinjar, Barack didn't just do air drops, he used it to further the Iraq War.

There's no reason that the US can't do an air drop.

Dempsey is correct that the Baghdad-based government could help.

While Haditha is frequently under attack (and, in fact, faced vehicle bombings earlier this week), it is not under the control of the Islamic State currently.

Dempsey could have cut the smarm and instead explored the lack of compassion on the part of the Iraqi government -- the Shi'ite led Iraqi government -- out of Baghdad with regards to the suffering of Sunnis (Haditha is a Sunni town).

Clearly, Iraq's (Shi'ite) Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi feels no pressure to send food.

(The State Dept had to strong arm him in to visiting a refugee camp last week.)

With them not willing to do so, the US military -- which all over Iraqi air space -- should immediately be dropping food over Haditha.

Is it hard to do?

Because the way I remember it, the Pentagon and the White House repeatedly insist that, when dropping bombs on Iraq, these are precision exercises.

So a bomb can be dropped precisely but there's some confusion over whether food and rations can be dropped precisely?

Again, the Baghdad-based government knows what's happening and has refused to step in.

US President Barack Obama repeatedly insists 'we're not taking sides.'

If you're looking the other way while a town of Sunnis are starving to the point that they're eating grass, if you're not rushing aid to them, you are taking sides, you are taking sides against Sunni civilians.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Mapping Military Madness: 2015 Update"
"The US must continue to help Iraq fight IS? Must?..."
"i use youtube"
"I use YouTube"
"I use YouTube for . . ."
"I watch YouTube"
"I don't use YouTube that much because . . ."
"I use YouTube"
"I use YouTube for . . ."
"I use YouTube for"
"YouTube use for me . . ."
"I use YouTube for . . ."
"She thinks she knows best"
"THIS JUST IN! SHE WILL DECIDE!"

She thinks she knows best

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

CRANKY CLINTON INSISTS SHE'S DONE NOTHING WRONG AND IS AMAZED THAT THE CONGRESS WILL NOT JUST TAKE HER WORD FOR IT.

"WHO ARE THEY TO ACCUSE ME?" HER ROYAL HIGHNESS INSISTED TODAY.  "I WROTE ALL THE E-MAILS AND THEN I DELETED ALL THE E-MAILS.  ALL BY MYSELF!  AND IF YOU'VE HEARD OF MY FAXING TROUBLES, YOU KNOW HOW HARD THAT WAS FOR ME."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Yesterday, US President Barack Obama spun on Iraq.


Today, State Dept spokesperson John Kirby tried to re-spin when problems were noted with Barack's 'facts.'


QUESTION: Iraq?


MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just on the President’s statement yesterday at the Pentagon, he mentioned a number of battlefield victories in both Iraq and Syria. He actually pointed namely to seven areas. And what I noticed was that six out of those seven areas were in the northern regions of Iraq and Syria, where basically the Kurds are in control. Can you say the Kurds are your only effective partner on the ground?


MR KIRBY: What I can say is – and I’m not going to get into military analysis – is that when you have capable, effective partners on the ground against ISIL – indigenous partners on the ground – you can be much more effective against that group. We’ve seen that in parts of Iraq where – whether it’s Peshmerga up in the north or Iraqi Security Forces down in the south, when they are effective, they can have an immense impact on ISIL. And we have seen that in areas in northern Syria with counter-ISIL fighters there. And again, the President detailed some of that and I talked to some of that yesterday as well. They have been effective in certain places and at certain times.


QUESTION: And, like, the only example really he gave that was outside the Kurdistan regions was Tikrit, which was achieved with the help of Iranian-backed Shia forces. So can’t you --


MR KIRBY: No, that’s not true. He talked about --


QUESTION: What else?


MR KIRBY: -- Mosul Dam, he talked about --


QUESTION: Mosul Dam was with the Kurdish forces. It was --


MR KIRBY: He talked about – there’s been other – the Baiji refinery. I mean, there’s been other areas in Iraq. I know where you’re trying to go with this, and what I’m trying to tell you is that you need good partners on the ground. In Iraq, we’re building and we’re working towards helping advise and assist the Iraqi Security Forces so that they can become more capable. And in some ways and in some places and at some times in this fight, they have been very capable.

In the north in Iraq, of course, there’s been some assistance provided to the Peshmerga, as they have taken the fight to ISIL in northern Iraq. And yes, we have provided some coalition air support to counter-ISIL fighters in the north in Syria. And we’re still trying to get a program stood up to train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition. Now it’s going slow. We talked about this yesterday. I think we all recognize there’s a lot of work to be done. But the whole focus of that effort is to help create additional competent, effective, capable security forces inside Syria that can go after ISIL – could protect their neighborhoods, their communities, and go after ISIL.



Barack's speech led Mike to name him "Idiot of the week" and to note Barack claimed Baiji on the same  day Rudaw reported "Clashes resume in Baiji after 'great victory'."  Trina offered "Barack wants more war" which emphasized Thomas Gaist (WSWS) report:

Rather than attempt a legal justification for the war, which has been launched and prosecuted behind the backs of the American people and in defiance of popular opposition, Obama defended his administration’s war policies by boasting of the large kill count achieved by the US-led coalition.
“It’s important to recognize the progress that’s been made. We’ve eliminated thousands of fighters,” Obama said, underscoring the fact that it has become routine for the American president to speak of “killing” or “taking out” people around the world.
Obama reiterated the US goal of regime change in Syria, declaring that the US would do more to aid the anti-Assad opposition, and adding that “the only way” to end the civil war in that country was to “transition to an inclusive government” without Assad.
Noting that he had recently discussed the war against ISIS with Russian President Putin, Obama hinted that Putin was amenable to Washington’s plans to topple Assad.
He said that the US would step up its counterterrorism operations in countries “from Afghanistan to Nigeria.” This was a signal that Washington will continue its drone strikes, bombings, commando operations and other illegal actions in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries.
Obama devoted nearly half of his remarks to what he called the fight against terror threats within the United States. He said, ominously, that his administration was “partnering with Muslim communities” in the US and added that “we expect those communities to step up.” This was a thinly veiled justification for continuing government surveillance of the American people and other repressive measures, carried out under the pretext of “protecting the homeland.”
His remarks followed days of media scaremongering leading up to the Independence Day holiday on July 4. For several days, the networks led their news broadcasts with alarming reports of heightened terror threats, without producing a shred of evidence to substantiate their warnings, while acknowledging that the government had not detected any “credible, specific threats.”
Obama’s emphasis on the “war on terror” at home made clear that the relentless campaign of the government to sow fear and anxiety among the public in order to justify internal repression and external military aggression would continue unabated.

Rebecca noted how poorly Barack looked in "barack looks like s**t" while Kat pondered Barack's claims of "Success?" with Kat concluding:

Today really was Barack's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" moment.
Did anyone notice?

Barack's speech was offensive and insulting on so many levels.

This included his conclusion:

In closing, let me note that this Fourth of July we celebrated 239 years of American independence.  Across more than two centuries, we’ve faced much bigger, much more formidable challenges than this -- Civil War, a Great Depression, fascism, communism, terrible natural disasters, 9/11.  And every time, every generation, our nation has risen to the moment.  We don’t simply endure; we emerge stronger than before.  And that will be the case here.  
Our mission to destroy ISIL and to keep our country safe will be difficult.  It will take time.  There will be setbacks as well as progress.  But as President and Commander-in-Chief, I want to say to all our men and women in uniform who are serving in this operation -- our pilots, the crews on the ground, our personnel not only on the ground but at sea, our intelligence teams and our diplomatic teams -- I want to thank you.  We are proud of you, and you have my total confidence that you’re going to succeed.  
To the American people, I want to say we will continue to be vigilant.  We will persevere.  And just as we have for more than two centuries, we will ultimately prevail.  

He wants to thank the military but not the American people at large?

He wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the American people at large.

He's just another War Hawk who never wore a uniform or carried a gun but wants to pretend like that's the only way to measure patriotism.

We could offer the fear examples but I really don't care to promote his scare tactics.

When Bully Boy Bush pulled this sort of thing, he would be mocked and called out.

We no longer live in such a world.

That became clear over the weekend when the dreadful Jill Stein announced she was seeking the Green Party's presidential nomination -- presumably so she could damage the party even more than she did in her 2012 run.

As we noted at Third, "Editorial: The endless joke that is Jill Stein."

Stein used her announcement speech to take a strong stand against . . .

talking about Iraq.

In her silence on the topic, she linked arms with Hillary Clinton, the only other candidate who can't and won't talk about Iraq.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Remarks by the President on Progress in the Fight ..."
"Mahmoud's revenge, Iraq's national guard"
"Pee Wee"
"well it's about damn time!"
"Why Indie?"
"Goodbye Kitty"
"Ted 2"
"Super Cage?"
"Film nightmare"
"Jaws"
"Diane Keaton"
"How do you watch?"
"She was protecting the press"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY HASN'T HAD HER SHOTS!"

She was protecting the press

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

CRANKY CLINTON IS GETTING BAD PRESS FOR HER 4TH OF JULY ANTICS WHICH ARE SEEN AS PREVENTING THE PRESS FROM OBSERVING HER BY PUTTING UP A ROPE TO KEEP THEM OUT OF HER CAMPAIGN EVENTS.

NOT SO, SAYS CRANKY.

"THE ROPE WAS THERE TO PROTECT THEM," SHE EXPLAINED EXCLUSIVELY TO THESE REPORTERS.  "WE HADN'T REALIZED THAT MY RABBI SHOT HAD EXPIRED UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE EVENT AND THERE WASN'T TIME TO FIND A LARGE ANIMAL VET AND GET ANOTHER SHOT SO WE JUST ROPED OFF THE PRESS IN CASE I STARTED FOAMING AT THE MOUTH."





FROM THE TCI WIRE;

Today, US President Barack Obama spoke publicly about the Islamic State.  The address took place at the Pentagon or, as ABC News put it, the address took place "in a rare visit to the Pentagon."

In other words, he may have visited all 50 states, but the Pentagon's never really been on his travel itinerary.

Dana Milbank (Washington Post) also noted the "rare visit" nature:

Obama had used the phrase before, but this was shock-and-awe-worthy — the commander in chief, in a rare visit to Defense Department headquarters, standing onstage with grim-faced and medal-festooned generals and likening war strategy to . . . an arcade game.


Milbank noted Barack "had used the phrase before."

That's true.

But the person who applied it to Iraq first and most persistently was Senator John McCain who began using it over and over in 2006.

For only one example of this, we'll flash back to the August 3, 2006 United States Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when the following exchange took place:

Senator John McCain: So, General Abizaid, we're moving 7,500 troops into Baghdad, is that correct?

General John Abizaid: The number is closer to 3,500.

[. . .]

McCain: And where are these troops coming from?

Abizaid: Uh, the troops, the Styker Brigade, is coming down from Mosul.

McCain: From Mosul? Is the situation under control in Ramadi?

Abizaid: Uh, the situation in Ramadi, is better than it was two months ago.

McCain: Is the situation under control in Ramadi?

Abizaid: I think the situation in Ramadi is workable.

McCain: And the troops from Ramadi came from Falluja, isn't that correct?

Abizaid: I can't say senator, I know that --

McCain: Well that's my information. What I worry about is we're playing a game of whack-a-mole here. We move troops from -- It flares up, we move troops there. Everybody knows we've got big problems in Ramadi and I said, "Where you gonna get the troops?" 'Well we're going to have to move them from Falluja.' Now we're going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else. It's very disturbing.

It was hard not to recall that exchange as Barack spoke today.

Such as the quote from Barack's speech Milbank offers, "ISIL lost at the Mosul Dam. ISIL lost at Mount Sinjar. ISIL has lost repeatedly across Kirkuk province. ISIL lost at Tikrit. . . . ISIL lost at Kobani."


Mosul?

Really?

The dam may have been 'saved' via intense bombing from US war planes but who controls Mosul?


As Reuters noted Saturday, "The city has been under Islamic State control since the Islamist militants took over in June last year" and "[t]he Shi'ite-led government has promised a military offensive to retake Mosul but progress has been slow."

A year and one month to 'retake' Mosul?

Yeah, I'd say that's pretty slow.

Despite that reality, Barack was insisting at the Pentagon that "today, it's also important for us to recognize the progress that's been made."


And, of course, the Islamic State seized control of Ramadi in April and remains in control of it.

But Barack spun this as a 'victory' as well, insisting in his long winded remarks today that "the fall of Ramadi has galvanized the Iraqi government."

The claim is laughable in terms of scoring it as a 'win.'

It's also factually a lie.

Since August, the US has insisted that a national guard in Iraq was a possible solution.  They've prodded the government on that.

Parliament's refused to vote on it.





RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"OBAMA'S IMPERIALIST FOREIGN WARS HURTING AMERICA'S..."
"Yanis Varoufakis resigns as Greece votes "NO!": Ge..."
"Call for immediate action to address a reported $2..."
"Barack's singing the same old song again"
"Michigan Greens Endorse MILegalize Marijuana Initi..."
"Are you lonely or pissed?"
"Accidents and other bombings"
"Hejira"
"The Denver Post lets Chris Hill lie again"
"Extant"
"Oh, Nicolas JS Davies, do you shut up"
"Idiot of the week"
"Barack wants more war"
"Review to come"
"The question"
"Hillary's lies catch up to her"
"barack looks like s**t"
"Success?"
"Fake Jill Stein can't talk Iraq"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: The endless joke that is Jill Stein
• TV: The return of the TV movie
• About the Aetna and Humana merger
• The Daily Beast doesn't do corrections
• From The TESR Test Kitchen
• This edition's playlist
• Humans - synthetic servants question what makes us...
• Highlights

Cedric's Big Mix

Axelroad explains his silence

4 days ago

The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! HE DIDN'T THINK ANYONE WOULD TRY TO CONTACT HER!

4 days ago