• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On June - 13 - 2014

Fighters of  al-Qaeda linked Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant parade at Syrian town of Tel Abyad

It seems like so long ago and yet not so far away, The Bush Administration was on an aggressive campaign to convince Americans and the world that we were all in danger from the evil Saddam Hussein who could kill us at any moment…and thus we needed to attack Iraq.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers and candy, the war would pay for itself through oil revenues and a domino effect of democracy would occur that made the Middle East a thriving Western democracy.

Those chickenhawk neo-conservatives who held the reins of our government while George W. Bush was president are now watching the dominoes they knocked over continuing to fall and no doubt they have one very upset reaction to what they’re witnessing, “It’s Obama’s fault, Obama lost Iraq.”

Those of us who aren’t so committed to denial that we would do anything to ignore reality, see this unimagined consequence of such narrow minded war mongering as the true and continuing “Mission Accomplished” by George Bush and his administration.

The truth is, we’ve spent billions and the lives of many of our soldiers, training a cowardly Iraqi Armed Forces that when confronted with an attack, tear off their uniforms and run away. Then they beg America to bomb their country again to defend them. Now that is a very complex mindset.

It is somewhat reminiscent of when Americans tried to train South Vietnamese forces to fight the North Vietnamese but finding that no matter how much time and resources were poured in, many were reluctant and afraid to do so. And when the Americans left, the South quickly fell. It is proven to be hard to turn those reticent about violence into becoming hardened soldiers. The current crisis in Iraq makes that clear.

ISIS, the radical Islamic army sweeping through Iraq and conquering town after town in a blur and terrible bloodshed, is a continuation of the Bush Doctrine at work. Republicans are especially bad at anticipating blowback, whether it’s what they say or what they do publicly, whether it’s Eric Cantor being taken out by the Tea Party monster he helped create or Iraq being so devastated and weakened by an unnecessary war that right now it looks like a helpless child being mauled by a bear.

To those Republicans who constantly reach for the “Bush isn’t President, time to stop blaming him for everything” panic button, actions have consequences and the destabilization of Iraq so that it could be on the brink of becoming the most dangerous, radical state on the planet, is primarily a consequence of Bush and his administration forcing their dishonest, trumped up war on the nation and the world. They sought to break Iraq apart and destroy its government so their cronies could profit from it…they threw the brick through the window but someone else more dangerous is crawling through the hole they created for themselves to use.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy but there are many bad guys running countries in North Korea, Russia, Egypt, etc. Sometimes it’s not a choice between good and bad, it’s between bad and worse. ISIS is a terrorist group, they could be the first to control their own nation (the Taliban were not exactly terrorists when they controlled Afghanistan, they were religious extremists that harshly applied their system on the nation and though they harbored Al Qaeda, they did not commit terrorist acts against the U.S. or have an agenda to do so).

And who does ISIS have to thank for the deadbolts being broken on the doors to Iraq? They ought to commission a bathtub self portrait of George W. Bush out of gratitude.

Calculating blowback may be something Republicans are very bad at but at least they never learn from their mistakes.

In the 1980’s, a little known Republican President named Ronald Reagan set the example by financing and training Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic militants to fight a proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan and that group came to form Al Qaeda. Yes, following the blowback trail, Reagan helped bring about the 9/11 attacks. But hey, let’s just name another bridge or ocean after him.

As for Bush’s legacy from the blowback of his deadly choices in the global arena, we don’t know right now where it will end or how horrible it will become.

It is ironic and sad that some are now looking back to the days when Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq as “the good old days” but it is hard to argue against that today. He had no weapons of mass destruction, no ability or agenda to attack the U.S., his brutal regime kept a lid on extremists (though many innocent Iraqis were killed, tortured and jailed under Hussein…but in numbers dwarfed by those that the U.S. war in Iraq brought about and is bringing about via blowback) and an invasion like we’re seeing today would have been violently confronted by Hussein’s military.

So here we are, trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and eleven years later, with Iraq on the verge of becoming the first Islamic terrorist controlled state. Well done, Bush! Another feather in your legacy cap…right next to the one for the global financial collapse.

“We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” that was at the core of the fear mongering by Bush but the smoking gun of the Bush Administration’s warmongering is a political mushroom cloud that continues to radiate to this day.

So do we get drawn back into airstrikes in Iraq to try and mitigate the cascading disasters that Bush’s fraudulent and greed-driven Iraq War has wrought? Or are we so war weary as a nation and now that we’re finally out of Iraq, we eschew further military force and watch as Baghdad falls to an army and regime of radical terrorists?

There is no good decision here, as with Saddam Hussein vs. ISIS, it is not a decision of one thing being better than the other. It becomes a decision over what is going to be worse…and trying to envision the blowback from making one decision or the other.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

254 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. gyp46 says:

    As I am reading this there is a US Senator, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, on the tube lying again about the removal of all troops from Iraq, and how that is all, of course, Obama’s fault. Along with the SCOTUS saying lies are OK, we are slipping into the world of ‘1984’, Orwell’s classic political novel. Where has the ‘truth’ and honor gone? How can ‘intelligent’, a loosely used term I know, people keep denying the basic facts? Even when video clips show the actual positions taken in the past, the liars just deny they even meant those words, and we as a people let them get away with it. The destruction of Europe in WW2 shows propaganda works, and the masters of today’s propaganda machine, Faux and the republican party learned that lesson well!

  2. NoManIsAnIsland says:

    Gregarious and gutsy KilgoreTrout,

    Thanks to your thoughtful suggestion as to how
    former — and utterly unlamented — Vice Presi-
    dent Dick Cheney could best serve his country in the current crisis in Iraq (bomb the ISIS, or ISIL terrorists with him), I was inspired to keep my eyes and ears open and was lucky to pick up the live feed of his first, and — no surprise — only real service to the country in his unparalleled career of doing everything in his vast power as a Robin Hood in reverse to destroy democracy, equal social and economic justice not only in the U.S. but also, thanks to his magnanimous nature, around the world as well!

    To tell the truth, Dick will be missed (sorry to be getting ahead of the story), but only by the other members of his malignant mob, whose reach, unfortunately, ISN’T exceeded only by their grasp.

    Will he be missed by those of us whose lives he made worse and not better…whose lives he helped maim or cut short in Afghanistan, Iraq and who-knowswhere-else? Not so much. Just speaking for myself, I don’t miss him already.

    O.K., enough “mourning” for a while. It’s time to lock and load and get on with the scoop I’m about to give you! What you’ll soon read is the brief audio of the live feed I mentioned above. I couldn’t capture the accompanying video, and disappointing though that is, I think the audio — which broke up just as “Operation Chickenhawk” ended, gives a very clear picture indeed:

    So with little further ado, enjoy! (Lord, I hate that exhortation! Then why did I use it? Oh, well….)

    “Live feed from okjjkzsrtguih, Eye-rack

    T I P P Y-T0P SECRET: E Y E S O N L Y !!!
    (Not any more, I guess!)

    O P E R A T I O N C H I C K E N H A W K ”

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FAIR WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The following may offend the tender sensibilities of violent, right-wing reactionaries — Peruse at your own risk; and consider what you will read may prove not to have been worth this rather grandiloquent, not to mention pompous, build-up nor the time you will have expended — to little purpose, I might add (and in fact just did!):

    All righty, it’s time to rock the truth now, a skill Dick Cheney never even wanted to learn. If you’re fellow devotees of PlanetPOV, I apologize for what may kind of, sort of, seem to be a bait and switch. But if you’re not — well, then….

    The following rap is really all of the audio that was clear enough to reproduce here, but I think it will have been worth the wait, for this is what blared loud and clear to the ISIL terrorists(REDACTED) below from the loudspeakers of the attacking (REDACTED) American (REDACTED) just as it (REDACTED) the bomb(REDACTED) doors and (REDACTED) (REDACTED)
    Hawk(REDACTED) on his last and ONLY patriotic act!

    Okey dokey, this is the rap, and remember you read it on PlanetPOV first!:

    “Hey, Hey — you ISIL perps boppin’ down the streets!
    Gettin’ big grins ‘n props from one an’ all you greets!
    Now get on down an’ look up’t that sky —
    You really think you ain’t gonna cry?
    No, no, no………no, no, no, NO!

    That fireball you sees is more than jus’ grainy,
    An’ it’s no freakin’ mess made ‘n the rainy:
    Right now y’all gon’ be punk’d by flamin’
    Bits ‘n pieces of…Chickenhawk Dick Cheney!”

    Have you had enough yet? I didn’t think so, and luckily — or not — for you — this touching and authenticated audio of Dick Cheney’s immoral final words came over the feed this very second (and if this isn’t really true, how would you know? — but I digress)! Whether you loved to hate him or hated to love him, you will surely cherish what he said longer than those who just loved him will. As he hurtled toward the ISIL thugs and their destruction — with Satan (not the U.S. as “the Great Satan”, but the real dude himself waiting to receive him in a loving embrace), in
    a tremulous, but VERY brave whine, barely audible over the roar of the rushing wind,
    he --BOOOOOOOOOM!!! KABOOOOOOOOM! BOOOOM!! BOOOOOM!!BOOOOOOOOM!!!!

    Oh, damn….

    All right, it’s a fair cop; but we all know if I’d told you in advance Cheney exploded just as he was trying to leave the world gracefully, how many of you would have stayed around for such an anti-climatic denoument? I rest my case.

    And it’s a darn good thing you haven’t left, because …This just in!!!! “A special recording device recently perfected by the NSA (the National Sequins Agency) has JUST revealed Cheney’s last sentence before his somewhat spectacular, but premature, personal Big Bang were these words of courage, and — dare I say
    it? — incredible patriotism (Yeah, right!):
    “Hell, no, I won’t GO!”BLAAAAAAAAAAAAM!!!

    So as blessed in his demise as he was in his charmed and despicable life, Cheney went out with a bang AND a whimper!

    And who knows, someday someone may become
    famous by writing “This is the way Dick Cheney ends,
    This is the way Dick Cheney ends — BADLY!!!”

    • Too funny NoMan! I’m glad I could inspire such a Karmic (comic) scenario! I would like to see the same use of the other neo-con scumbags, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Rice!

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        Thanks a lot, KT! With you as my inspiration
        I had no choice but to try to rise to the
        occasion, and I’m glad you enjoyed it.

        Of course a dead earnestness lay underneath
        it all, but I edited out the last paragraphs
        to keep the tone lighter.

        If you’d like to read what I cut, here it is,
        with a repeat of the preceding paragraph as
        a lead-in:

        Will he be missed by those of us whose lives
        he (Cheney) made worse and not better…whose
        lives he helped maim or cut short in
        Afghanistan, Iraq and who-knows-where else?
        Not so much.

        Just speaking for myself, I don’t miss him
        already.

        But those who don’t believe in upholding
        the Geneva Convention and treating prisoners
        of war humanely, and those who delight in
        starting illegal wars of choice will mourn
        the loss of their role model. So what if
        he didn’t believe in democratic government,
        so what if he was a great champion of evil
        and poor character in every form?

        He tried all on for size and found a perfect
        fit in each: cowardice, fascism, hypocrisy,
        greed, and lying — he delighted in them all.
        And all that mattered to his pathetically
        immoral and amoral supporters and enablers
        was he very often got the results they and he
        wanted. That the results were rotten goals to
        strive for mattered not a whit to any of them
        — it just made their “triumphs” more
        delicious.

        That’s all, there ain’t no more. I just hope
        I didn’t let Cheney off too easy. He wasn’t,
        after all, my favorite vice president.

        I, too, would like to see the other neo-con
        scumbags you mentioned get the same treatment,
        but I leave the field open to other takers for
        now.

        This is the first time I’ve ever written anything
        like this, although parodies and humorous
        pieces are my métier. I find it easier to
        write something strictly serious, such as
        straight journalistic commentary or opinion
        pieces, and I’ve done them as well. But I
        get the greatest pleasure from making people
        laugh, or at least smile.

        And no, I wasn’t the class clown, but thanks
        for asking. Just kidding, but I think you knew
        it! ;)

    • gyp46 says:

      “IF ONLY”, SOONER BETTER THAN LATER. THANKS,GYP46

  3. EXFANOFARIANA says:

    Effing hell…even Faux News are calling their bullshit…..This piecce of trash and his daughter…….I am SO FURIOUS now I could spit FIRE into this draconian bastard….

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/19/watch-foxs-megyn-kelly-tells-dick-cheney-history-has-proven-you-got-it-wrong/

    Sorry St…I am very much Italian…And I would love to torture this barbarian…..

  4. SearingTruth says:

    Thank you for your introspective article, and sheer human truth, gentle friend AdLib. You are a treasure of humanity.
    ST

    “We’ve made new rules.

    We can kill anyone, any time, and any day, in any country.

    Without trial, or representation, or notice.

    And if there are innocent children around who get slaughtered as well, we are extra sorry.

    But after all we are America.

    Lost land of freedom, and justice.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  5. NoManIsAnIsland says:

    It’s great to talk with you again, PPO. and now that my head’s stopped spinning from the intoxicating effect of your most extravagant compliment, still I must reluctantly tell you this: As you started my morning on such a high note, my day can only go downhill from here! ;-) But I consider it a very small price to pay for being so honored!

    And rather than directing you to read a comment below your reply to the pes-, I mean poster, JJF, beginning “How about Googling things yourself, JJF,” let me say here how elegantly and impressively you read him (assuming “Jack” is a man) the riot act! It puts me in mind of watching a duel where a vastly outmatched opponent is so quickly vanquished with a delicate rapier thrust he doesn’t realize he’s
    done for, if he realizes it at ALL, until it’s too late. In like manner
    with your civil but most droll words, you have done the same to our apparently now-resident troll, and I salute you!

    • pinkpantheroz says:

      You are way, way, too kind, NoMan. I truly feel this way about the Planet and its inhabitants. So much intelligence, and quite frankly, I get intimidated sometimes that I haven’t the spread of knowlege that is shown here on a daily basis. I am very flattered that you liked my little riposte at the poor schmuck and my kudos to you. I, as so many others, won’t be drawn any further into this type of trollery. I do suggest JJF change his moniker to OldDog, because he obviously can’t learn any new tricks.

  6. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    IMAGINE…..

    Another”insertion” into the Middle East. This time with the U.S. in an alliance, a “coalition of the willing” featuring our staunch allies,

    the The Supreme Leader of Iran (Persian: ولی فقیه ایران‎, vali-e faghih-e iran, lit. Guardian Jurist of Iran, or رهبر انقلاب, rahbar-e enghelab, lit. Leader of the Revolution) the Ayattolah Ali Khamenei,

    and Bashar Hafez al-Assad (Arabic: بشار حافظ الأسد‎ Baššār Ḥāfiẓ al-ʾAsad, Levantine pronunciation: [baʃˈʃaːr ˈħaːfezˤ elˈʔasad]; President of Syria, General Secretary of the Ba’ath Party and Regional Secretary of the party’s branch in Syria.

    And Nouri Kamil Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki (Arabic: نوري كامل محمد حسن المالكي‎; the Prime Minister of Iraq and the secretary-general of the (Shiite) Islamic Dawa Party.

    opposed to the forces ISIS The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria/the Levant (Arabic: الدولة الاسلامية في العراق والشام‎ ʾad-dawla ʾal-islāmiyya fīl-‘irāq waš-šām or Arabic: داعش‎ dāʿiš), abbreviated as ISIS AND their allies? Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt?????

    It is Shia (the “good guys” vs Sunni “the bad guys”, at least today, folks.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket!

  7. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    DONALD RUMSFELD, PREDICTING THE COURSE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ
    November 15, 2002, 1:54 PM

    There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.

    “The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990,” he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.

    He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq’s armed forces are weaker.

    “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,” he said. “It won’t be a World War III.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rumsfeld-it-would-be-a-short-war/

    donald-rumsfeld-documentary.jpg

    BEWARE THE NEO-CONS…
    WRONG THEN, WRONG NOW, WRONG TOMORROW

  8. SearingTruth says:

    Solomon’s decision gentle friend AdLib.

    Shall we allow evil to kill them, or kill them ourselves?
    ST

    “Whenever there is a sudden shadow we cover our children.

    Because sometimes they are killed by bullets from the sky.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  9. Kalima says:

    I disagree on his take on Syria and believe it was Russian interference, and foot dragging from other countries. Otherwise Tomasky is spot on as usual.

    —-

    GOP IRAQ HYPOCRISY HITS OVERDRIVE

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/16/gop-iraq-hypocrisy-hits-overdrive.html

  10. SearingTruth says:

    Gentle friend AdLib, it appears the future is upon us. The true future, not that conveniently predicted so long ago.

    Thank you for your truth, and let us all hope, and if religious pray, for the innocent to be spared.
    ST

    “The greatest persuader is the ever encroaching power of truth.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  11. President Obama was never FOR the war in Iraq, and this fact was a big part of his presidential campaign in 2008. After being elected and having such a huge weight placed upon his shoulders (a weight he knew would be placed there) he realized that his duties as commander-in-chief would not allow him to simply abandon Iraq. Much was left to be done, and the “mission,” had NOT been accomplished as the previous commander told us all, in a cheap, vaudevillian fashion.

    Obama did what was right. He knew he was sending Americans to their probable demise and he knew our military action, HIS military action would also get innocent Iraqis killed. But what choice did he have? Abandon any previous efforts to stabilize and democratize Iraq, after so many deaths and so much of our nation’s treasure had been squandered? Really?
    Only a madman or a child would think that was right.

    Our president, the current one, did what he had to do, to uphold the “deal,” made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz. President Obama took the advice of his commanders on the ground in Iraq and weighed, quite heavily, any decision there after.

    For anybody to say that president Obama “owns,” the Iraq war, or what is happening now, just simply refuses to face facts and ignore history. Holy Jeebus!

  12. JumpingJackFlash says:

    Good leaders lead, bad leaders make excuses.

    Obama is the owner of this situation in Iraq. Bush predicted this would happen if we left Iraq too early.

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/06/bush-warned-this-would-happen-in-iraq/

    • AdLib says:

      JJF, is there anything negative that you attribute to the Bush Presidency due to any of the decisions Bush made?

      • JumpingJackFlash says:

        Sure, he made lots of mistakes. He was very much a liberal on expansion of the Federal government and increased spending. He was actually the first Republican I had ever voted for and I had hoped he would reign in the Federal government but that didn’t happen.

    • Beatlex says:

      You are deluded Mr Flash.This war was a scam from the start.Open your eyes to the facts

      • JumpingJackFlash says:

        If it was a scam it started before Bush was in office because a lot of high ranking Dem’s were talking about how dangerous Iraq was.

        • Kalima says:

          Didn’t funksand debunk this recently on the outlandish post with links to what the Dems you are accusing actually said before it was tampered with by your side? Why bring up an argument you have already lost?

          Here, let me refresh your memory.

          JumpingJackFlash says:
          06/13/2014 at 5:08 PM (Edit)
          I think everyone here is forgetting the bipartisan support for the war in Iraq and why we went. Here’s an excellent article spelling out the reasons. Give it a read.

          http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson

          funksands says:
          06/13/2014 at 6:08 PM (Edit)
          Jack, for your reference, here are the actual full quotes including context. Anything after October 1, 2002 is based upon the altered National Intelligence Estimate provided to Congress by the Bush Administration.

          http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

          • JumpingJackFlash says:

            That article doesn’t “debunk” those quotes at all in my opinion. It gives context around the statements which only gives more support to what’s in the quotes. They all thought that Iraq was dangerous at the time and nothing had changed by the time Bush was in office.

          • GreenChica says:

            One wonders why certain people have to resort to twisting facts and lying outright to support their positions. Perhaps it’s because their positions are actually nonsupportable. If they had valid arguments in support of their views, they would use them, wouldn’t they?

            • NoManIsAnIsland says:

              One would think so, wouldn’t
              one, GreenChica!

              It would be easy to say all
              of these irrational people
              are certifiable; but while
              many actually are, others
              are not.

              The difficulty comes in
              separating them. I know a
              number of people who lead
              apparently normal and
              successful lives; but when
              it comes to historical facts,
              they believe whatever they
              want and reject anything which
              doesn’t fit their delusional
              ideations.

              In light of this, I think the
              next Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) could list this
              puzzling disorder as “Political Insanity.”

            • monicaangela says:

              It appears some people argue just for the sake of arguing:

              Eristic, from the ancient Greek word eris meaning “wrangle” or “strife”, often refers to a type of argument that focuses on ending with successful disputation of an argument as opposed to approaching a given truth. According to T. H. Irwin, ” it is characteristic of the eristic to think of some arguments as a way of defeating the other side, by showing that an opponent must assent to the negation of what he initially took himself to believe.”

              That is, eristic arguments focus on being right, or being perceived as right or compelling. The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage in a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic. Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of conflict resolution.

              Keep this in mind when dealing with JJF. :)

            • Kalima says:

              Yes GreenChica if they had more than disputed lies, they wouldn’t keep asking the same questions on other posts, and would try to argue their point. How can one debate without actual valid facts? Beats me.

              By the way, welcome to The Planet.

    • monicaangela says:

      1. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invaded Iraq with no clear and comprehensive plan for what to do after the invasion and the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Weeks before the war, the administration stated there was no reason to fear that sectarian conflict would ensue after Saddam was booted.

      2. Following the invasion, the Bush-Cheney administration decided to prohibit the Sunni-dominated Baath Party from participating in a post-Saddam government and decommissioned the existing Baathist-led military. This caused deep resentment among Sunnis, especially former military commanders and soldiers (who would now be available for an armed opposition). The move had the effect of banishing Iraqis with governing and security experience from the post-Saddam order. That would be good for chaos and conflict.

      3. The Bush-Cheney deciders, having decimated the Sunni ruling establishment, backed the creation of a government led by hard-line Shiite religious parties, including the party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The Maliki regime has been corrupt, authoritarian, and incompetent—and allied closely with the Shiite government in Iran. (Iran was a key sponsor of Maliki when he was in exile during the Saddam years.) The thuggish Maliki government, supported by the Bush administration and then the Obama administration, has treated the Sunni areas of Iraq as enemy territory and refused to share power with Sunnis—stoking the deep-seated tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. (As the murderous Sunni ultra-extremists of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, have gained power in Mosul and other Sunni-dominated cities and towns, non-extremist Sunnis have sided with—or tolerated—the jihadists because of their shared hatred of the Maliki regime and the Iraqi military, which Sunnis in Mosul considered an occupying force).

      4. President Barack Obama did not leave a residual force of American troops in Iraq after he withdrew US troops because Maliki would not sign a Status of Forces Agreement protecting US soldiers. Though Bush also did not negotiate a long-term SOFA, prominent Republicans, including Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney, have slammed Obama for failing to obtain such an agreement. But Fareed Zakaria reports that a senior Iraqi politician told him, “Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that it’s No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.”

      5. The United States has provided much training and equipment to the Iraqi military—$25 billion in military aid—before and after the US withdrawal. Yet under Maliki the Iraqi army has not been professionalized and has committed repeated abuses against civilians, according to Human Rights Watch, including unlawful raids and arrests, torture, and indiscriminate shelling. When a relatively small band of jihadists attacked Mosul and Tikrit, four major divisions folded. Training and equipment does not help if soldiers strip off their uniforms and flee because they are not committed to the mission and the government.

      6. More US assistance to Maliki and his military may not make the difference. (See No. 5.) Moreover, Iran has sent special forces to Iraq to assist Maliki—bolstering Iraq’s dependence on Iran. If the United States were to funnel additional military equipment (and more advanced equipment) to Maliki’s army, it could well end up with the ISIS jihadists (given the Iraq military’s habit to cut and run) or—get this—with the Revolutionary Guard of Iran. A good deal for Tehran. And if US air strikes are ordered in Iraq to assist Maliki, American fighter jets or drones would be deployed in a tactical alliance with Iran.

      7. The current crisis is not the result of inadequate US support of Maliki and the Iraqi military. It is the outcome of Maliki’s failures, which have provided the evildoers of ISIS—a band that does threaten civilians and stability in the region—an opportunity, and these failures were enabled by the Bush administration and unaddressed by the Obama crew. Unless the basic dynamic is altered, any military action—whether taken by the United States, regional allies, and/or NATO—will be as effective as pounding sand.

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        Splendidly said, monicaangela! All I can add is that
        any military action absent a change in the basic
        dynamic could be LESS effective than pounding sand, as pounding sand at least leaves a temporary depression in the sand — which is more of a result than any likely military action would accomplish.

        • monicaangela says:

          Thank you NoManIsAnIsland. Good to see you here, looking forward to good conversation and time well spent reading your comments as I did when we were at HP. :)

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            You’re very welcome,
            monicaangela!

            It’s good to see you here too,
            not to mention how flattering
            it is to know you find reading
            my comments “time well spent”
            — especially since I find your
            posts extremely telling and as
            well-researched as they are
            well-written. The scope of your
            knowledge, and apparently
            wide-ranging interests, never
            fails to impress me!

            A case in point is your citation
            of “eristic” a few posts above
            here. Of course I’m familiar
            with the concept but hadn’t
            known that one word
            beautifully defined the
            sick desire to engage in
            argument solely for its own
            sake.

            Read my post immediately
            above yours on “eristic,” where I
            wrote (not having yet read yours)
            certain otherwise normal poor
            souls actually are in the thrall of
            political insanity.

            Talk about coincidences! ;^D

            • monicaangela says:

              LOL!! We used to do that at HP also. Don’t know if you can remember, but I would often laugh and say to myself, “Anybody reading those two post would believe we were writing them from the same room using the same computer and the same computer keyboard. :)

              Like minds I guess. ;)

      • JumpingJackFlash says:

        Remind me who is the leader of ISIS and who released him in 2009.

    • monicaangela says:

      This is of course a joke….Right? Bush jumped in with shock and awe, jumped out with trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars spent or in His and Dick Cheney’s portfolios and you now want to blame President Obama? That’s like me starting a fight with Mike Tyson, then throwing you in the ring as I jump out, and then if Mike happens to clean your clock, which he probably would, me stating to those watching, well the problem is JJF, really screwed that up, he should have thrown a left instead of a right, and should have kept his head down and stayed in the ring instead of getting out before he wound up in the hospital. Wake up. :)

      • NoManIsAnIsland says:

        LOL, monicaangela, and what a pleasant relief to
        escape from the toxic atmosphere of the Huff’nPuff
        Post to the delightful environs of PlanetPOV, where
        civility and intelligent discourse rule — mostly!

        On HP, my welcome for the ever-swelling deluge of
        truculent and tenacious trolls wore out rather
        quickly. But here when one wanders in wittingly
        or not, there is no realization of what an unfair
        contest he or she has blundered into.

        To riff on your boxing analogy, I’m astonished
        how some trolls, in the words of the old Timex
        watch commercial, “take a licking and keep on
        ticking.”

        In recognition of JJF’s dogged efforts to speak
        lies to PlanetPOV, I suggest we dub him “Sir
        Jack Flash-in-the-Pan!” Do I hear a second?

      • JumpingJackFlash says:

        So maybe we shouldn’t have elected someone who wasn’t qualified for the job. Your analogy shows even you don’t think Obama is a qualified leader of this nation.

        • monicaangela says:

          It’s obvious you also have a reading comprehension issue. And, what makes you qualified to say who is and who isn’t qualified to be President?

        • AdLib says:

          Huh?

          Bush drove the nation through a red light, crashed it financially and into a war, then ran away from the scene. Whoever follows him is “unqualified” because they’re left trying to clean up the damage Bush left?

          Don’t understand the reasoning.

          Wasn’t the guy who crashed the nation the one who was unqualified to drive it?

          • JumpingJackFlash says:

            Obama didn’t “clean up” anything. He pulled our troops without regard to the consequences. In my book, that’s someone who’s unqualified to be the Commander in Chief.

            • Fergie1 says:

              JJF, please. Not only was it the correct thing to do to finally bring U.S. troops home from a war where thousands of men and women lost their lives for no good reason, but Nuri al-Maliki, believed Iraqis own security forces were more than up to the task of protecting the country from terror attacks originating within its borders or foreign incursions from neighboring countries.
              Even Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi refused to endorse a U.S. troop extension and instead indicated that they should leave.

              In an interview Allawi said : “Keeping Americans in Iraq longer isn’t the answer to the problems of Iraq. It may be an answer to the problems of the U.S., but it’s definitely not the solution to the problems of my country.”

              Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish lawmaker considered one of the most pro-American members of parliament, said in a recent interview that he wanted the U.S. troops out.

              “Personally, I no longer want them to stay,” Othman said. “It’s been eight years. I don’t think having Americans stay in Iraq will improve the situation at all. Leaving would be better for them and for us. It’s time for us to go our separate ways.”

              The fact is that Iraq is a sovereign State and not even the leaders wanted U.S. troops to stay. That is their right.

              Apart from these facts, do you really want more sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers etc. to die for an unjust war? I’m astounded if your answer is yes.

            • AdLib says:

              So you think the President who steered the US and Iraq into this disaster was more qualified than the President who worked to get us out?

              Under Bush, the economy blew up and we were misled into an unnecessary war that continues to haunt us. How is that reflective of a “qualified” president?

              Do you see Bush as a qualified and successful President? If so, why?

      • Kalima says:

        But, but… monicaangela, that’s Obama’s debt don’t you know. They conveniently forget all about that it belongs to them. Never mind that the President has managed to reduce it considerably. They are not very good with maths so will say as they do with everything, that he fudged the numbers.

        Reminds me about the conversation we had the other day about very rich people getting a free meal from their friends.

        • monicaangela says:

          That is it exactly Kalima, amazing isn’t it…I guess we just have to understand that the brain is an awesome instrument, and as such, it allows some to beguile themselves. :)

          • Kalima says:

            Hi monicaangela, the problem is that it’s their choice, rather like sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating “La, la, la” when someone is saying something you don’t like. I did it as a child, but never as an adult.

            • Kalima says:

              Perfect and so true. Loved it! :lol:

            • monicaangela says:

              They are the type that will eventually follow the following scenario:

              A man died and went to The Judgment, they told him , “Before you meet with God, I should tell you — we’ve looked over your life, and to be honest you really didn’t do anything particularly good or bad. We’re not really sure what to do with you. Can you tell us anything you did that can help us make a decision?” The newly arrived soul thought for a moment and replied, “Yeah, once I was driving along and came upon a person who was being harassed by a group of thugs. So I pulled over, got out a bat, and went up to the leader of the thugs. He was a big, muscular guy with a ring pierced through his lip. Well, I tore the ring out of his lip, and told him he and his gang had better stop bothering this guy or they would have to deal with me!” “Wow that’s impressive, “When did this happen?” “About three minutes ago,” came the reply.

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

              I guess we have to remember…some people never grow up. :)

    • AdLib says:

      Your comments often bring this image to my mind for some reason ;-) :

      cherry-picking.jpg

      JJF, you have to admit that you cherry pick items from conservative blogs that support the Republican agenda you support…and in this case, those items aren’t accurate.

      Of course RW blogs and think tanks happily twist themselves into pretzels trying to deny responsibility for what resulted from their President’s actions and blame it on the other party’s President. Are you surprised, is anybody? Would anyone expect AEI or RW blogs to say, “You know what? Bush is to blame for whatever resulted from his actions.” I don’t think so.

      But it is an alternate reality. Isn’t it curious to you that you can’t find what’s expressed on right wing blogs confirmed on any objective or mainstream sites? The scam is to say that there’s a conspiracy to hide the truth but the reality is…it’s not the truth.

      A RW blogger has an opinion that Obama didn’t want to keep forces in Iraq but that’s just made up out of thin air.

      Here is an article from the 2011 Washington Times, a conservative paper as I’m sure you know:

      Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

      The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans’ terms.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/22/iraq-pm-immunity-issue-scuttled-us-troop-deal/#ixzz34qYJRpRI

      Facts. Not opinion and provided by a conservative newspaper. Happy to debate reality but the RW think tanks and bloggers you linked to and quoted don’t seem to live in that neighborhood.

        • AdLib says:

          JJF -- Yes, that works. If you read the whole article, there is NOTHING in it that says Obama refused to leave troops. Here’s the opening paragraphs:

          The last American commander in Iraq recommended to the Obama administration that 23,000 U.S. troops remain to cement the victory, but no deal was ever reached with Baghdad, and all combat forces went home.

          This is compatible with the article I quoted above from the Times that states the reason was due to Iraq’s refusal to agree to US terms. Again, NOT because Obama refused.

          As to this canard about Iraq being “won”, consider how contradictory the following is:

          Retired ArmyGen. John M. Keane, who advised commanders in Iraq and helped devise the 2007 troop surge, remembers how the U.S. achieved victory by working hand in hand with Iraq’s military to conduct pinpoint strikes. The effort was so effective that the enemy, al Qaeda in Iraq, stopped sending killers into Iraq because they would be exterminated quickly.

          And this from another RW source, the Ron Paul Institute:

          The surge temporarily paid off enough Sunni fighters to let American commanders and politicians claim that violence was coming down. But it also gave Iraqi Sunnis greater material and organizational wherewithal with which—once U.S. forces were gone—to attack what were bound to be non-Sunni-dominated central governments.

          Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, who led U.S. forces in northern Iraq during the surge, says he “never anticipated” that Sunnis his troops trained would join with—and give U.S.-provided weapons to—radical jihadis. But at least some of Hertling’s troops recognized, in the words of a former Marine, that they were paying and training “hired thugs.”

          http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/june/16/america%E2%80%99s-middle-east-delusions.aspx

          Added to this from the article I quoted from the Times:

          Iraq’s prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits.

          The comments by Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, made clear that it was Iraq who refused to let the U.S. military remain under the Americans’ terms.

          So, the claims about Iraq being “stable” or the surge working…is incomplete because part of the “success” of the surge is…the arming and empowering of ISIS.

          The blowback from Bush’s “successes” only worsens with each month.

          • Fergie1 says:

            Ad, I posted my comment above before scrolling down to yours. I hadn’t read the articles you included here. So I was writing from the information with quotes that I knew I had heard quite a while ago and double checked to make sure I was hearing/reading correctly.

            I agree with you entirely.

        • Beatlex says:

          The Washington Times is a right leaning newspaper,of course they would make excuses for Bush’s epic blunder in Iraq

          • JumpingJackFlash says:

            Are you saying ArmyGen. Lloyd J. Austin is lying then?

            • pinkpantheroz says:

              Think about a certain General Powell at the UN. Ring a bell?

            • Nirek says:

              Jack, it is my experience that Army Generals will lie to get what they want and to advance their careers.

            • AdLib says:

              JJF -- Read my comment to you above, yes, he is lying and it’s not unprecedented for Generals to lie. Colin Powell lied about anthrax to the UN, Generals lied about the friendly fire killing of Pat Tillman, they lie in sexual assault cases and who can count the lies during Vietnam.

              Being a general doesn’t mean being above lying. Some are honest, some aren’t, just like everyone else in real life.

    • Nirek says:

      Your hero is the guy who engineered the date to withdraw. President Obama just followed up on getting us out. You do know that , right Jack?

      • JumpingJackFlash says:

        “Some Obama apologists argue that we could not maintain our military presence because the Iraqi government wanted us out, and thus would not negotiate a status of forces agreement with us. In reality, though, Iraqi prime minister Maliki and his government wanted a continued U.S. military presence, and it was Obama who never seriously negotiated for this to happen. His goal was a complete military withdrawal so he could boost that he ended the war in Iraq.”

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/why-obama-owns-iraq.php

        Obama also released the now leader of ISIS in 2009.

        http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/147962-startling-report-isis-leader-details-release-u-s-custody-brutal-reign-terror/

        • Fergie1 says:

          With respect JJF, that is blatantly untrue.

          From The Atlantic: ” The White House was trying to persuade the Iraqis to allow 2,000-3,000 troops to stay beyond the end of the withdrawl date.

          Those efforts had never really gone anywhere; One senior U.S. military official told National Journal that they were stuck at “first base” because of Iraqi reluctance to hold substantive talks.”

          As stated in my comment above, the Iraqi political leadership wanted the U.S. troops to go home.

        • AdLib says:

          You mentioned below that Iraq was stable when Bush left office, the facts are that 2008, Bush’s last year in office, was a benchmark year for terrible disintegration and violence in Iraq.

          All you had to do was Google “Iraq 2008 violence” and you’d have found numerous articles such as this one, that compares a later year of horrible violence to Iraq in 2008:

          Iraq suffers its deadliest year since 2008

          The NGO’s own figures suggest 9,475 civilians were killed in 2013, compared with 10,130 in 2008.

          http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/01/iraq-2013-deadliest-year-since-2008

          With such massive amounts of civilian killings, Calling Iraq in 2008 “stable” just isn’t reality.

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            OMG, AdLib! I accidently gave
            (and couldn’t take back) a thumbs
            down to your response to JJF
            beginning “JJF — Read my comment to you above, yes, he is lying and it’s not unprecedented for Generals to lie.”

            I haven’t read such stuff and
            nonsense as JJF’s for a long time,
            and it would be funny if it didn’t
            remind me so much of the
            reactionary and often demented
            comments that helped drive me
            from the dreadful Huff’nPuff
            Post!

            How you, Kalima, and
            Monicaangela can suffer a fool
            (apparently) gladly while speaking
            truth not to power but to lunacy
            is beyond me — but I admire all
            of you for it!

            • pinkpantheroz says:

              I couldn’t agree more, NoMan. It is truly a joy to see everyone here debunking the more radical bleatings of the far right. PlanetPOV is the site where you can enjoy and absorb the distilled essences of some incredible brains, yours among them.

            • Kalima says:

              Fixed it NoMan, I’m queen of the butterfingers and do it quite often. :D

              We are willing to give people a free platform to speak, it’s when they break our rules in our Terms of Use that AdLib and I take action.

          • JumpingJackFlash says:

            So if Iraq was so unstable, why did Obama pull our troops out instead of renegotiating the treaty? You can’t have it both ways.

            • AdLib says:

              JJF -- You’re avoiding the facts above and that’s your right to do.

              Despite what RW detractors may say, Obama is not king of the world, he can’t dictate to Iraq to allow troops to stay on the ground in their nation.

              Iraq would not agree to continued US troops presence. I know it makes a better anti-Obama story to say it’s Obama’s fault but it’s not supported by facts.

            • monicaangela says:

              From a 2011 article:

              The U.S. military presence is and always has been unpopular, and the politicians in power have strong incentives to appear independent and unyielding in dealings with the United States. The constituency that supports maintaining American troops in the country — which includes Kurds, some Sunni Arab factions, and parts of the security establishment — is small compared to the broad-based view that it is past time for American forces to leave. Even Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has an ironic record of portraying himself as the country’s liberator from American occupation. Secretary Gates’ suggestion that U.S. troops could stay longer prompted protests across Baghdad and warnings from influential cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that a continued presence would reignite violent resistance. Al-Sadr’s loyalists comprise a key component of al-Maliki’s governing coalition, which helps explain why the Prime Minister has been adamant that the deal is “not subject to extension [or] alteration.”

              http://mideastafrica.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/04/29/stop_trying_to_renegotiate_the_sofa

    • Kalima says:

      Good leaders don’t invade a nation that poses no threat to theirs, and then blame the next leader for their own incompetent mistake of invading in the first place. Good leaders take responsibility for their fuck ups. Has Bush? He broke it, he owns it.

      • JumpingJackFlash says:

        I hate to break it to you but Bush has been out of office for almost 6 years and Obama is our leader now. Debating if we should have gone into Iraq doesn’t help us now. Obama’s actions (not Bush’s) are responsible for what’s going on now.

        • MilesLong says:

          `Again, you show your ignorance of the simple concept of “cause and effect.” {chuckle}

          To try to repudiate the fact that the Bush Crime Family destroyed a country with America’s first and only war of Economic Expansion, and on the biggest of lies, is Conservative Delusion at its best.

          Sadly, criticizing President Obama for the way he’s holding the mop he’s using to clean up GWB’s most tragic mistake, a mistake that directly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands (London’s Lancet Journal) is either delusional or the height of deceit…

          Miles “Too Easy Drill Sergeant” Long

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            Right on, MilesLong! Why JJF
            would want to invade a hornet’s
            nest of well-informed people
            who know their facts and express
            them cogently is beyond me.

            Of course JJF may be delusional
            or deceitful, but masochistic
            also seems a possibility!

            • Kalima says:

              Maybe you should broaden your outlook and see what is said in the rest of the world. I’m not American, don’t vote for anyone, yet these facts have been all over the globe for years. When someone doesn’t want to learn the truth, they close their eyes and their ears which is what you have been doing since you came here.

              Did you even read the links that so many went to the trouble of posting to you?

            • Well JJF, you really must not have been paying attention. Several people have posted FACTS and supplied links to those facts. How can you not……..Oh nevermind! 8O

            • JumpingJackFlash says:

              From what I’ve seen, you guys are only informed with liberal talking points and you always revert to “it’s all Bush’s fault”.

          • JumpingJackFlash says:

            Rant all you want about blaming Bush but Obama took a stable situation and made it unstable.

            • Fergie1 says:

              Oh goodness gracious JJF! Are you serious? All I’ve got to say to that is WHAT? :roll:

            • Kalima says:

              Iraq was never stable, not even way before the last troops left. That was just propaganda by those unable to state the truth. Your side claiming victory with the “surge” ignored the gathering storm of small groups of insurgents.

            • MilesLong says:

              Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

              A “stable situation?”

              Miles “Ignorance Or A Lie, You Be The Judge” Long

        • Kalima says:

          Don’t speak to me as if I were a 6 year old, I know who your President is, and he clearly promised to end the war in Iraq, which he did. So Bush hiding out at his ranch saying he knew this would happen, is the sign of cowardice in my book. Saying he didn’t make any mistakes and sleeps well at night after so many died, is unforgivable.

          Debating who to blame is viable because none of the Bush admin has taken responsibility. Shameful.

          Maliki was chosen by Bush. A Shiite bent on revenge for years of oppression by the Sunnis, and without allowing them enough representation in the government.

          Republicans have a history of blaming the other guy, it’s much easier than taking the blame. Good luck with that because not everyone is wearing blinkers.

          • NoManIsAnIsland says:

            Great comment, Kalima, and
            thanks for fixing my mistake!
            I understand your policy and
            approve of it, yet I marvel at
            JJF’s ability to take direct hits
            of truth, shrug them off, and
            come back with seemingly
            endless rationalizations,
            distortions, and untruths!

            If ever there was a glutton for
            punishment, JJF seems to be
            one. I have no idea what the
            poster is trying to accomplish;
            but whatever it is, it certainly
            escapes any rational observer!

            • Kalima says:

              My pleasure NoMan. There is a name for someone who posts only negative comments on every post so far, and comes to stir up trouble with proven lies. Then goes away when confronted with actual facts. I’ll leave to you to guess what it is.

          • JumpingJackFlash says:

            Read my response to Nirek. Iraq wanted to renegotiate the treaty and Obama wouldn’t do it.

            • Kalima says:

              I wonder why? Do you think it could be because he made a promise to the American people to end the war, and is a man who keeps his promises?

              Would another 1,000 troops and thousands more innocent Iraqis have been more to your liking?

              I suggest you read AdLib’s reply to you above, it might clear up some of your obvious misconceptions.

          • JumpingJackFlash says:

            Obama ended the war in Iraq without regard to the consequences. That’s why we have this problem today and that’s also why Obama owns it.

  13. Misterbadexample says:

    Not to let W off the hook, but our fractured dealings with Iraq are as convoluted as our dealings with Iran. We put the Ba’athists in charge in 1963 when Qassim started demanding a bigger share of oil royalties for Iraq, and Saddam had ties to the CIA in the 1950’s. And there’s more than a little to suggest this is not home-grown rebellion.

    We got to wear the crown of world’s undisputed Big Dawg from the fall of the Berlin Wall until now.But our expiration date has passed. It isn’t going to get better as the world economy unwinds. Boots on the ground in Iraq (which is what it would take to ‘rescue’ our ‘victory’) would be the last blow Obama’s backers could take. The anti-war left might actually wake up. And if such a move ratchets up gas prices (and how could it not), people will take to the streets.

    • NoManIsAnIsland says:

      You’re absolutely right on all counts, Misterbadexample,
      and the misbegotten British and American-engineered coup
      in Iran was fomented for exactly the same reason Saddam
      was helped in Iraq!

      Can anyone say “Blowback x2?”


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Sponsors
Features