Open Thread – Iraq on the verge of collapse

If you’ve been following the news coming out of Iraq during the past two days, then you already know how dire the situation is.

To recap –  a band of radical Islamofacist militants calling itself ISIS (Islamic State if Iraq and Syria) has begun a coordinated series of attacks in the northern portion of Iraq.  The cities of Mosul and Tikrit have already been captured.  Over $400 million in Iraqi currency (and possibly gold bullion) has been stolen from the central bank in Mosul.  US-made weapons and equipment have been commandeered from fleeing security forces.  Hundreds of thousands of evacuees and refugees are now on the run.  Scores of decapitated corpses of captured police and state security forces are said to be lining roads and highways.  The militants are headed toward Baghdad, promising a bullet in the head for anyone who stands in their way.

Unsurprisingly, ISIS wants to re-establish the ancient Islamic “caliphate” that once stretched from Spain, through North Africa, and across the Middle East.  Reportedly, they have already began enforcing barbaric fundamentalist Sharia in areas they have captured.  They are, essentially, Taliban version 2.0.

There are a lot of things about this story that are worth discussing:

I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin’ home by the end of the summer. You’re gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin’ toward a representative government.

  • And finally, will Obama’s “Smart Diplomacy”TM – which includes such debacles as the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, Libya, Syria; the deterioration of relations with Israel; Russia/Ukraine; and now Iraq – lead to a much larger, more catastrophic era of warfare?  “Peace” brought about by appeasement or attempting to negotiate with terrorists and tyrants has never proven to be successful.  I think we’re right on track for some sort of WWIII in the very near future.
Leftist Donna Brazile Warns The GOP Civil War is Over, The Tea Party Won
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • 914

    Releasing Al Queada terrorists is such smart diplomacy. It’s a good thing the world is a way less violent place as he stated yesterday.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    It’s a royally fucked up situation.

    Obama’s got NO good options on this. He’s not going to do anything but some token relief work, and maybe – maybe – a few airstrikes. To do ANYTHING else, even seriously acknowledging the problems there, would indicate that (a) he fucked up, and (b) to fix it he’d have to do a whole lot of stuff that he promised he never would – such as ramp up our presence there,

    Oh, wait – he’s already tossed that out.

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/us/iraq-us/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    “You’re on your own. Good luck.”

    They didn’t deserve this.

    God, they didn’t deserve this. We should support our allies – not dump them when it’s politically convenient and leave them twisting in the wind. This is Vietnam 2.0 – we promised support then and yanked it, and we promised Iraq support and yanked that. Our politicians can’t remember beyond the last election, and they can’t plan beyond the next – but the rest of the world isn’t so ignorant, and it won’t be able to trust us at all now.

    The geopolitical reputation of the US is going to be decades recovering from this.

    • JWH

      Nouri al-Maliki’s government hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory, either. ISIS is getting support from Sunni tribal chiefs because they feel the Shiite-led government has shut them out of the halls of power and persecuted them.

      Me? I don’t see no upside for the US to get involved in this at all.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Perhaps, but it is hard to look at a train wreck, and not feel sorry for the victims in it.

        • JWH

          Is a train wreck the right metaphor here? I think of it more as a bed. Maliki made this bed. And now he has to lie in it. Iraq certainly hasn’t enough time to create a Jeffersonian democracy. But at the same time, Maliki has been incredibly short-sighted in the way he’s run his government.

          Did you know that some of ISIS’s field commanders were high-ranking officers in Saddam’s army? Seems to me that Iraq should have tried to find those men a role in its new government, rather than give them an incentive to join the insurgency.

          I don’t think patronage is a superior form of government, mind you. I just think that if Maliki had spread the patronage around, he might not be yelling his head off for US and Iranian help right now.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            There’s a lot that was done wrong in Iraq – but I’m starting to think that one of the worst things was to turn the reconstruction essentially over to the State Department as quickly as possible, as opposed to letting the military examine and stabilize things for six months to a year.

            Water under the bridge at this point – but it seemed to me at the time that a lot of the folks in State were more interested in making sure Iraq had problems that could hurt Bush for 2004 than a success that would reflect well on him in the long run.

            We’ll see where this all goes – but I don’t think it’s going to go well.

          • Hank_M

            “one of the worst things was to turn the reconstruction essentially over to the State Department.”
            I could not agree more.

          • Commander_Chico

            There were only a handful of State Department people in Iraq in 2003. Like any careerists, they tried to do a good job. Patrick Kennedy was the top career State Department guy. Most of the other top people in the occupation were political appointees, for example Bremer, Bush’s Yale roommate Tom Foley, Ari Fleischer’s brother Michael, and contractors.

            There just were not enough people on staff to administer and pacify a country the size of California. The real money for reconstruction – the $19 billion “supplemental appropriation” was not passed until the fall of 2003 and did not begin to flow until 2005, given the realities of USG contracting. Those contracts were mostly supervised by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The book to read is Tom Ricks’s Fiasco.

    • jim_m

      We used to support our allies. Then we elected obama and he has screwed every ally and appeased every enemy from the moment he took office. obama has set this world up for a massive conflagration that will end up taking millions of lives across the globe.

      Appeasement at the beginning of the last century ended up costing 50-60 million lives. I’m willing to bet that obama’s appeasement costs double or triple that.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        When the rest of the world exists merely to serve the aspects of Obama’s personal psychodrama, giving him darn near everything he wanted with no effort, it’s hard to see how it might have come out differently.

        The concept that other countries might NOT have his best interests in mind was foreign to him, as was the idea that just maybe groups and nation-states had interests and desires beyond what HE thought they should have.

        Now we see what happens when you pursue diplomacy for re-election. Those sound bites were sure tasty at the time, but could end up giving one hell of a case of indigestion to the world.

        • Brucehenry

          Reading too much D’Souza.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            No, haven’t read anything by him. But it’s pretty clear as far as Obama is concerned the world is supposed to run the way HE wants, and that it doesn’t is a serious design flaw that someone should fix.

            And while that’s being done, he’ll just go play golf.

      • Brucehenry

        “We used to support our allies. Then we elected Obama…”

        We support our allies except when they are in the wrong or they no longer advance our strategic interests. In 1956 Britain and France were our allies but we denounced their actions in the Suez crisis. In 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem, our ally and puppet in South Vietnam, had his death warrant signed by JFK. Gerald Ford and the US Congress abandoned Thieu because he no longer commanded any support and could not be sustained in power no matter HOW many billions in arms we might have granted him. If Maliki falls it will be for the same reason.

        I forget who said it, maybe Lord Palmerstone, about how a great power has no permanent allies, only permanent interests?

        • jim_m

          Not true. Had obama bothered to follow through and give the new government enough support to survive then Iraq wouldn’t be being taken over by al qaeda. Al Qaeda wasn’t making these inroads when Bush was around.

          I also seem to recall that less than a year ago Dear Leader was claiming that al qaeda was “on the run”. So this cannot possibly be Bushes fault. al qaeda by obama’s own claims was dead and buried and now it is winning.

          You can’t have it both ways. obama said that this was done and now it is a total failure. Either he is a liar and nothing he says can be trusted or he is a failure because he had beaten al qaeda and then screwed up and is now letting them win.

          So which is it? Is obama a liar or a failure? You have to choose. He can’t both have beaten al qaeda and maintain that al qaeda’s victory is Bush’s fault.

          • jim_m

            I really like to hear a logical explanation on how this could be Bush’s fault if al qaeda was on the run and beaten two years ago. If we won the war and the enemy was vanquished how is the President that started the war at fault?

            Reciprocally, if we had won and the enemy was on the run but has come back in the last 2 years and is now winning how can you not claim that it is the fault of the president that oversaw that revival?

            Please don’t hide behind your dumbass ideology. I want an explanation. The two things cannot coexist. Bush cannot be at fault if al qaeda was on the run after he left office.

          • Brucehenry

            It was easily foreseeable — and foreseen by many including myself — that invading and occupying Iraq would be kicking a hornet’s nest that would have disastrous consequences eventually. It was easily foreseeable — and foreseen by anyone familiar with American history, including myself — that the American people would tire of war and occupation and would eventually elect a president who would extricate them from the mess that Bush and his self-deluded advisors were about to make.

            The fact that Obama has made claims that al-Qaeda is on the run is beside the point. One doesn’t have to agree that they are on the run to see that this would never have happened if the US had never invaded in the first place.

          • jim_m

            BULLSHIT! Don’t give me that crap. 2 years ago obama claimed that al qaeda was on the run. That means that we had won the fucking war you dumbass! The claim by obama is everything. It establishes that whatever happened in Iraq cannot possibly be Bush’s fault because the enemy was beaten.

            How then could it possibly be that if we had won the war and the enemy was defeated that it is Bush’s fault that they are now coming back?

            Your avoiding the question because you know you are full of shit.

          • Brucehenry

            Just because you type bullshit in all caps doesn’t mean you are reading bullshit, genius. Again, let me repeat: One doesn’t have to agree that al Qaeda is on the run to see that this would never have happened absent the invasion and botched occupation.

            I’m not responsible for, and am not required to defend, every claim Obama makes, you see. If he claimed al Qaeda was on the run, and then this al Qaeda offshoot makes it plain they are NOT on the run, at least in Iraq, I guess he was wrong about that. It doesn’t make Bush RIGHT to invade.

          • jim_m

            OK, but then the occupation was botched by obama, not Bush. Bush could not control the withdrawal, which is entirely obama’s fault.

            I will take by your statement above that you acknowledge that obama is incompetent and is not capable of understanding what is going on overseas

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha I’m sure you will take it that way, you delusional can’t-fucking-read loony.

          • jim_m

            You want delusional go read your butt buddy Chico

          • jim_m

            I was not claiming that the decision to invade was right, that is a different discussion. My claim is that the post war activities were screwed up.

          • Brucehenry

            well then why are we arguing. I WAS claiming the decision to invade was the wrong one and you jumped in with both feet and all caps.

          • jim_m

            Because the decision to invade is not the reason that this is ending up in the crapper. There was the beginnings of a stable government with free elections. obama screwed these people over. Go over seas and you will not find people cursing Bush for this, you will find them cursing obama. Even in Europe the bloom is off that rose.

            The rest of the world knows obama fucked this up. The only ones who haven’t clued in are the lefties in the US.

          • jim_m

            Learn how to type Bruce. I visited another site, read an article and left a comment, all while you are typing on this thread.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I try to proofread as I go.

          • jim_m

            Doesn’t your browser underline typos? (of course spellcheck doesn’t catch everything)

          • Brucehenry

            Yes but I also sometimes re-word a comment for syntax and just how it “sounds,” too. But I admit I’m a slow typist as well.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            And like most of what you try to do here you do a piss poor job of it. You should go to work for the 0bama Administration with your record of competence.

          • Brucehenry

            In contrast you do an excellent job here.

          • Brucehenry

            Well whatever people overseas are cursing about today it is my opinion that this wouldn’t be happening had not Bush and his “advisors” sold a war to the American people that, it could easily be, and was, foreseen, they would soon tire of.

            When they did tire of it, they elected someone who promised to extricate them from it. Which Obama did.

          • jim_m

            I have previously stated that where Bush failed was to continue to sell the war at home. Once he got the authorization he stopped and that meant that leftist anti-war propaganda was virtually unopposed. Had he continued to use the bully pulpit of the presidency he could have avoided the erosion of support.

          • Brucehenry

            That’s funny because I remember an ongoing defense of the war throughout the Bush administration. I don’t know where you get that.

          • jim_m

            Others defended it but Bush did precious little. You got a lot of conservative commentators supporting the war but Bush wasn’t going on TV and continuing to present the case like he was beforehand. It was a grave error on his part.

          • Brucehenry

            Uhhhh, ok if you say so.

          • Commander_Chico

            No matter how much bullshit Bush flung it would not have changed the reality of dead and horribly maimed American troops, corruption and stolen money, civil war between Iraqis, hundreds of billions of dollars going up in smoke.

            Nothing Bush said would have made all of that seem like a good idea. Because it wasn’t.

          • jim_m

            The only reason you oppose the war is because it gives you an excuse to stand on the dead bodies of our soldiers to make a political point. Had you ever served you might feel differently.

            Fact of the matter is that a military presence backing up the new Iraqi government would have stabilized the region and would have reduced all the risks of civil war. You know that but you would rather use dead soldiers to advance your ideology rather than admit the truth.

            You never served and every comment you post makes that more and more clear.

          • Commander_Chico

            Fact of the matter is that Americans staying in Iraq would have meant more dead and maimed Americans and the same Iraqi government aligned with Iran making the same mistakes.

          • jim_m

            That’s right Chico. Because Americans serving in the military do so because they know that the job is totally risk free.

            see my comment about Iraq and how actually having the guts to work it out would have yielded a lasting victory and that the loss of life would likely have been less than you claim.

            But when you someone is a coward like you I suppose achieving victory is not worth paying any price. Had you actually served, serving to support your country would have given you more courage than simply serving for the money.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Don’t forget the Ds in Congress who authorized it. Then turned against it when it was convenient.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t forget them. Nor excuse them. Nor do I find it surprising that a pack of weaselly politicians found it expedient to sound warlike and ready to kick some Muslim ass in the aftermath of 9/11. After all, THEY weren’t going to risk their lives and neither were THEIR kids.

            The difference is I fault them for THAT expediency, not for turning against the war when it was obvious it had been a mistake.

          • jim_m

            So you will be bringing that issue up when Hillary decides to run? I thought not.

          • Brucehenry

            As always, I will almost certainly be voting for the Democratic nominee whoever he or she may be. Because he or she is almost certain to be less of a fuckup than whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be.

          • jim_m

            As I figured. Opposition is only superficial and only a pose.

          • Brucehenry

            One can disagree with a politician on certain issues and still not “oppose” the politician. Just as you disagreed with Bush on a whole host of issues, or so you claim, but still voted for him twice.

          • Jwb10001

            It’s a good thing you’re not a blind partisan.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It is my opinion that brucehemorrhoid is in dire need of a plexiglass navel.

          • jim_m

            The reason obama’s claim is relevant is because it demonstrates that the US won in Iraq and the enemies were vanquished. So you are either claiming that obama is incompetent and could not tell what was going on over there or he is a liar or he was telling the truth and then threw it all away.

            I will grant that it could be Bush’s fault only if you accept the fact that for it to be Bush’s fault obama has to be either a liar or an incompetent. I’ll even let you choose between liar or incompetent.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Iraq is a clusterfuck now because the current foreign policy team fucked up by the numbers.

    • jim_m

      obama’s best case on this is a bloody civil war between religious factions that results in the slaughter of millions of innocent Iraqis. Worst case is a new islamic terrorist nation exporting terrorism across Europe and into the US and destabilizing the Middle East and probably an outright war against Israel probably unleashing nuclear warfare in the ME with millions dying as a result.

      Either way, obama’s fecklessness will result in a lot of dead people. But don’t worry, they will still be able to vote democrat.

      • Paul Hooson

        I’m absolutely disgusted with this McGovernlike foreign policy mess we created for ourselves. The U.S. public wanted a withdrawal from Iraq, which this White House should have steadfastly opposed and continued a strong military presence there. Instead, this White House gives in to this public opinion, which is bad policy for the U.S. to project, and now we have a crisis. A White House cannot run foreign policy by public opinion polls. Foreign policy needs to be run for the national interests of the U.S. and for the foreign interests of it’s allies.

        • jim_m

          The white house is completely uninterested in foreign policy. obama has only ever been interested in imposing his far left envro-socialist ideology on the country and enriching his cronies. Foreign policy was developed to the point of “let’s screw over our allies and suck up to our traditional enemies” and no further.

        • LiberalNightmare

          We? You got a mouse in your pocket Paul?

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        I’m thinking we’ll be getting “worst case”. I hope that I’m wrong on that.

        • jim_m

          I think you’re right. I think obama’s appeasement has guaranteed another world war.

    • Paul Hooson

      You’re absolutely right here, JLawson. This is exactly the same mess that George McGovern promised for Vietnam that I was so opposed to, but in the end, both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford did the same as McGovern. – Once the U.S. enters a situation like this, it has to be more like post war Germany, Japan or Korea, where the U.S. maintains a strong presence to deter further aggression, otherwise we appear weak to our adversaries who take advantage of this, acting enboldened.

      • jim_m

        Once the U.S. enters a situation like this, it has to be more like post war Germany,…

        Agreed. DeNazification was a crucial step at the end of the war. Even with those efforts people who opposed the Nazis were discriminated against for decades after the war. In the case of Japan there were holdouts that refused to surrender for months.

        The Democrats have done a good job of fooling the public into believing that once the war is over then all the work is over. Chico is a prime example of this idiotic way of thinking.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          I believe the last holdout was captured/surrendered in 1974.

          • Paul Hooson

            Wow!

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Yep, a Japanese soldier on a South Pacific island. I remember the news on that.

          • jim_m

            Hiroo Onoda held out until 1974. What a nut. Almost as crazy as Chico, but not quite.

            Teruo Nakamura held out for longer and had to be arrested. I think he might actually be as crazy as Chico. It’s a close call.

        • Paul Hooson

          Absolutely correct here. – The job of creating a completely stable Iraq was not yet complete, yet the U.S. chose to withdrawal troops because of public opinion opposed to the Iraq War in general. The U.S. cannot run a foreign policy based on public opinion polls, when achieving stability and protecting U.S. and it’s allies interests have to be the chief reasons for a particular foreign policy.

          • jim_m

            The job of creating a completely stable Iraq was not yet complete, yet the U.S. obama chose to withdrawal troops

            FIFY

          • Commander_Chico

            The American people were overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq by 2008 and in favor of the withdrawal in 2011. That’s one reason Obama won the election. It’s called democracy.

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/150497/three-four-americans-back-obama-iraq-withdrawal.aspx

            http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

          • jim_m

            The American people were against the war, but that does not mean that they were for squandering all potential gains that we had made in the region. The primary reason that the public opposed the war was because 1) Bush did an exceptionally bad job of explaining why we were there and 2) the dems and the media mounted a coordinated campaign against the war (mainly because they wanted the US to lose).

            Had obama governed in a practical manner and not from a strictly ideological standpoint he could have withdrawn troops in a manner that would have avoided this disaster. As it is he made no attempt whatsoever to avoid this.

            This problem is the direct result of his reckless actions, his ignorant world view and juvenile understanding of foreign policy.

          • Commander_Chico

            Why don’t you explain why it was a good idea to invade Iraq, if Bush could not do that?

          • jim_m

            Why don’t you check yourself into a mental hospital for treatment of your psychosis?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Is your google foo so weak that you cannot find the AUMF Resolution for Iraq? The casus bellum are listed within.

          • jim_m

            The problem with Bush was that once he got the authorization from Congress he never bothered to focus the nation on the issue ever again. In order to keep the country behind you, you need to constantly be telling them why it is necessary to conduct the war and what is at stake. Bush was a complete failure in this regard.

          • Retired military

            Your girl Hillary thought so.

          • Retired military

            Chico
            That anthrax proof is on that same email server that crashed with Lois Lerner’s emails.

          • jim_m

            Why should anyone take anything seriously from an admitted troother and conspiracy theory nutball, who thinks that Bush was complicit in 9/11 and that Cheney was responsible for the anthrax attacks?

          • Retired military

            “The American people were overwhelmingly against the war in Iraq by 2008″
            Since Chico is in favor of ruling by public opinion polls than he should be in favor of Obama resigning since Obama’s numbers are underwater and the majority of Americans feel the country is going in the wrong direction.

        • Commander_Chico

          Chico’s way of thinking is don’t wage wars of aggression to begin with.

          • jim_m

            Chico’s way of thinking?

            Here’s what EVERYONE thinks about Chico’s way of thinking:

            Why should anyone take anything seriously from an admitted troother and conspiracy theory nutball, who thinks that Bush was complicit in 9/11 and that Cheney was responsible for the anthrax attacks?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Ha ha!

          • Jwb10001

            Chico your way of thinking is so screwed up you’d be better off not thinking at all.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            He, and more importantly, everyone he comes into contact with…

    • Commander_Chico

      I blame Obama, not for withdrawing troops from Iraq, but for helping the rebels in Syria and allowing our “allies,” like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, give arms to these ISIS guys.

      Otherwise, it is like Vietnam in that the government army does not want to fight. 10,000 soldiers and police fled from 800 ISIS fighters in Mosul.

      You can’t substitute the morale of Americans for the lack of morale in the Iraqi army. It is up to the government of Iraq to give their soldiers something to fight for. If they don’t give a shit, why should we?

  • jim_m

    Iraq is EXACTLY what obama intended it to be. He never cared about our obligation to the people there. He never cared about the sacrifice of our military. He wanted the war there to be over.

    Obama likes to boast that he ends wars. But wars only end when one side gives up. obama is all about the surrender. obama wants the US to lose, and wants the sacrifice of military lives to be in vain.

    This will lead to more bloodshed and more lost American lives in the end. What’s more, because obama has demonstrated that insurgency will work, he has guaranteed that whenever the next war comes that it will result in ongoing insurgencies and he has guaranteed the loss of hundreds if not thousands of lives of American soldiers.

    • Hank_M

      I’m reminded of the most quoted passage in former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s memoir, “Duty.” It describes the March 2011 meeting with Mr. Obama about Afghanistan in the situation room.

      “As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his,” Mr. Gates wrote. “For him, it’s all about getting out.”

      Same applies to Iraq except the 2012 election was looming, hence his Oct 2011 anouncement that all troops would be home for the holidays.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        Sound bites are very important for a good campaign. You’ve got to have priorities, after all.

  • Hank_M

    From the Belmont Club yesterday…

    ” Obama has presided over the destruction of American influence in the Middle East, the hollowing out of the US economy, the perversion of American intelligence assets and the maltreatment of American veterans.”

    “When you add in the Eastern European crisis and the growing expansion of China to the Middle Eastern collapse, it is not hard to see the obvious. Unless a miracle saves Obama, the nation will be facing a global and existential security crisis within a short time. America will face a supercharged Islamic terrorism with thousands of recruits in the West available as a 5th Column, supplied with vast amounts of money and in potential possession of most of the world’s oil.”
    Thankfully, Obama and his people are so much smarter than the rest of us.

  • jim_m

    “One of the things that I strongly disagree with Senator McCain
    is, this notion that we have future catastrophe to look forward to if we
    start phasing down troops… – obama, 2007 Presidential debate

    Seems that obama’s adolescent world view is not showing to be congruent with reality.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    As Bernard Lewis wrote : “America is harmless as an enemy but treacherous as a friend.” The United States and the Middle East.
    See, also, http://www.steynonline.com/6417/harmless-as-an-enemy-treacherous-as-a-friend
    When former Cambodian prime minister, Prince Sirik Matak, turned down asylum, as offered by the United States, he said: “I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection and we can do nothing about it. You leave us and it is my wish that you and your country will find happiness under the sky. But mark it well that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad because we are all born and must die one day. I have only committed the mistake of believing in you, the Americans.”
    Now, think of the Iraqis and Afghanis who believed in us. Heart breaking.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      No Ally is safe when Democrats dhimmocrats control U. S. Foreign Policy.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    In other news, Rose Mary Woods is apparently working in the IRS IT Department: “IRS Claims to Have Lost Over 2 Years of Lerner Emails” http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=384506

    See, also, http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/the-two-year-gap.php

    • jim_m

      This is what you get when you have a president that believes he is above the law and an Atty Gen that thinks that the law is only a tool with which to punish your enemies.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I will bow to the expertise of any IT guy, but I’ve read it’s damn near impossible to totally lose 2 years of e-mail just because of a computer crash [the stated IRS excuse]. This is probably a crime under Sarbanes-Oxley.
        If you were in a Federal Court undergoing civil discovery and tried this, the sanctions, including spoliation of evidence claims, which can lead to inferences that the evidence is damaging, would break the bank.

        • jim_m

          If the emails were archived in a PST file my understanding is that if the file becomes corrupted it can be very difficult to resurrect the data.

          However, given the amount of coverup that has already transpired I cannot help but think that this is deliberate.

          • Jwb10001

            I suspect the FBI could recover more of that data then you might think. I believe they have tools that will recover data from pretty bad circumstances. Beyond that this sounds like a case of potential obstruction of justice, arrest some people (IT if you have too) pressure the hell of them and get some names or the data or both.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Using the IRS as a hammer against your political enemies is the absolute worst of all of Obama’s scandals. Thus, the magnitude of the cover-up. Will the MSM still treat this as a “phony scandal” containing not a smidgen of corruption?

          • jim_m

            The press will not want to report anything that might reflect badly on an ultra left wing dem admin. There is no amount of lawbreaking that they will not cover for as long as they perceive themselves as benefiting in some ideological manner.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Lucy’s got some ‘splainin to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax6QGmKhRwo&feature=youtu.be
            at about 3:30
            When did this crash and immaculate loss occur?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I believe that the hearing above took place on March 26, 2014: “Camp pointed a finger at IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who pledged in a March 26 hearing to produce every document the agency had which might be related to the scandal.

            ‘It appears now that was an empty promise,’ Camp said, complaining that without emails between Lerner and government officials outside the IRS, ‘we are conveniently left to believe that Lois Lerner acted alone.’”

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657545/IRS-claims-LOST-two-years-worth-email-embattled-former-official-Lois-Lerner-tea-party-targeting-scandal-heats-again.html#ixzz34ZTVygx8

            Again, when did the crash occur? The IRS Commish didn’t know on 3/26 that the most important of the e-mails were magically lost?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            How did the FBI complete its investigation [led by Obama donor Barbara Kay Bosserman] into the IRS in January of this year without 2 years of Lerner’s e-mails?

            Did the investigation include looking into the 1.1 million pages of material containing legally protected taxpayer information that shouldn’t have been sent to the FBI, but was [a fact we didn't learn about until June of this year]?

          • jim_m

            Do you really have to ask? The conclusions of the FBI investigation were determined by obama and Holder before the investigation began.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            PST files are a local copy of a user’s mailbox. If they lost two years of mail they’re not competent to handle anyone’s financial data.

          • Retired military

            Jim you can use tools to read the data directly off the disk.
            Believe me unless they overwrote the entire disk about 40+ times or else demagnetized it then they can get the majority of the data back. Even if you use a hammer on it they can still read some of the disk.

          • jim_m

            I agree. See also my comment that states that federal emails are backed up daily.

            There could not be any loss of these emails. There is either a cover up to hide the fact that they are still available or there is a cover up over the systematic deletion/destruction of that data both on Lerner’s computer as well as the network servers.

            Either way this is direct proof of a cover up within the obama admin.

        • Retired military

          A computer crash SHOULDNT cause that much of a loss of data even with a serious hard drive crash. IT forensic guys can still read sectors of the disk no matter what.
          For those who think wiping a hard drive can hide data should realize that if you write over an entire hard drive with zeros and 1s that the NSA can still read the data even if it was done 8 or 9 times if not more.
          THey could run a strong magnet over the hard drive and scramble it but that would hardly qualify as a hard drive crash and would fall in the category of sabotague.

    • Commander_Chico

      The Congress should give Lerner immunity and make her testify. She’s a small fish at the bottom of the chain of command.

      • jim_m

        Lerner already has immunity because she knows that the Holder DOJ will never prosecute her. No one can offer her anything that will compel her to talk. (although water boarding might work and I would not be against that)

        • Commander_Chico

          Let me make it simple for you: giving her immunity removes her ability to take the Fifth.

          • jim_m

            No it does not. While she could theoretically be prosecuted for obstruction or contempt, the DOJ under Holder will never do so.

            Does that make it simple enough for you, you fucking moron?

          • Commander_Chico

            You are very rude, with all of the vituperation all of the time. You must be boiling with suppressed hostility in your everyday life.

            Anyways, Congress can force the appointment of an independent counsel to prosecute, or even impeach Holder.

          • jim_m

            And neither of which will ever happen so my point stands.

            I am only hostile to lying charlatans like you. I wonder if you are one of those a-holes who parades a bunch of medals around that he never won.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You have earned far worse, chicka.

          • Retired military

            So then she says that she is responsible for Everything that has gone wrong under Obama, doesn’t get prosecuted for anything, Obama is given a free card that says “hey you already found out who did X so stop trying to blame me, and absolutely nothing gets done.
            It is like giving Jack the ripper immunity and he then admits that he not only killed the women that he did but all the ones for Bundy, and every other mass murderer in history.

          • Jwb10001

            It however does not remover her ability to lie her ass off. This bitch is totally untrustworthy and should have to sit in freakin’ jail until she decides it’s better to throw these bastards under the bus than to sit in jail for the rest of her life. Must better outcome is to find her in contempt, tell her she can get out of jail when she agrees to testify under oath and tell the truth, with the additional caveat that if she’s shown to be lying she goes immediately back to jail.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes all true Americans know that the 5th amendment is only for people they like.

          • jim_m

            I would be proper to find her in contempt as she gave testimony before congress, thus waiving her 5th amendment rights, and then refused to answer any questions.

            There have been many legal opinions to this effect. A waiver of privilege can be inferred when a witness provides testimony on a related subject. Such a testimonial waiver is exactly what Lerner has done. While a court may still preserve her rights she is in the position now of having to defend her rights because she made this waiver.

            Of course Bruce doesn’t think that a leftist should ever have to testify to anything.

            My opinion is that since her testimony is going to be a sack of lies that we should just throw her ass in prison for obstruction and be done with it.

          • Jwb10001

            No you see contempt of court is only for people you disagree with in Bruce’s partisan world. Like Libby caught in some stupid trap about some inconsequential aspect but I’m sure Bruce thinks he should be rotting in jail.

          • Jwb10001

            She can’t come in and tell them how she’s not done anything wrong then not answer questions. You try that in court sometime and see how fast you’d end up in jail.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Its funny, I don’t remember the IRS losing any of *MY* information over my last 35 yrs as a taxpayer.

    • jim_m

      Turns out that gov email servers are backed up nightly

      I’m a DOJ lawyer, so you obviously cannot use my name or any identifying information. But the idea that a “hard drive crash” somehow destroyed all of Ms. Lerner’s intra-government email correspondence during the period in question [2009-2011] is laughable. Government email servers are backed up every night. So if she actually had a hard drive fail, her emails would be recoverable from the backup. If the backup was somehow also compromised, then we are talking about a conspiracy.

      And you have got to love the postscript

      I’m serious about your keeping any identifying information out of the media. Things are very, very bad.

      What? It’s not like the obama admin has been illegally punishing whistle blowers. Oh wait. never mind. But hey, who cares what laws they break? Holder will never allow any prosecution.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I have just one thought on this, and it sums up my feelings about the last 6 years pretty well.

    Told ya so.

  • jim_m

    Speaking of obama foreign policy… has he managed to get the abducted girls back from Boko Haram? Yeah, that disappeared from the news because the MSM couldn’t tolerate embarrassing the failure in chief.

    Catch a clue obama. Twitter doesn’t get those girls back, Delta Force does.

    • Commander_Chico

      Typical General Jim. Wants to risk lives of US strategic assets on something that has nothing to do with US.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        I think Jim is commenting on the fecklessness of Obama’s hashtag diplomacy, prominently showcased by the MSM as an example of him doing something.

      • jim_m

        Walter has it correct, but while we are here we can ask:

        Why should anyone take anything seriously from an admitted troother and conspiracy theory nutball, who thinks that Bush was complicit in 9/11 and that Cheney was responsible for the anthrax attacks?

        I think you need to answer those questions for EVERYONE here. I think that your answers might include checking in to an inpatient psychiatric hospital for an extended period of time.

        • Commander_Chico

          I never said Bush was complicit in 9/11. I said he was negligent in allowing it to happen despite explicit warnings.

          I believe there was a conspiracy WRT to the anthrax attacks, as does Sen. Leahy, and Cheney is my prime suspect.

          http://rlv.zcache.com/dick_cheney_did_the_anthrax_attacks_hat-r45be570f362a4c318bc5a07a477a21b2_v9wfy_8byvr_324.jpg

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Ha! Ha!

          • jim_m

            Notice that all though this insane trip that chico has taken that his toady, Bruce, has been conspicuously absent?

          • jim_m

            So he knew about Exactly what was going to happen and when it was going to happen and he allowed it to happen because you believe that he was taking political advantage of it.

            You are making a distinction with very little difference.

            Frankly, I think that troothers like you bring down the tone of this blog and should be removed.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, because you’re an authoritarian who can’t tolerate dissent. Your fixation on me and Bruce is demented.

            We’re commenters on a blog, get a grip. This is a form of amusement, it means nothing.

          • jim_m

            I’m not fixated on you. I just enjoy deriding your lunatic ideas. And now that you have decisively outed yourself as a complete and total buffoon, whose ideas deserve nothing more than ridicule and disdain, I enjoy it even more.

            I notice that you are failing to provide any proof of your ideas other than your accusations. That is pretty much the same proof you have provided about you military service. I’ll bet that is a bunch of BS too.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Thus spake the soi distant “cognoscenti veteran” anti- semitic troofer who proposes to disenfranchise all non veterans.

          • jim_m

            How can anyone possibly accept his claims of being a vet when he spouts this insane crap about Cheney and anthrax?

          • Brucehenry

            It’s funny how you leap on Chico’s allegation that Cheney may have been involved in the anthrax attacks, calling it nutty and blah blah blah.

            I agree it seems farfetched, and I don’t subscribe to it, but it pales compared to the years of anti-Obama vitriol you and others have spouted here, which you seem to find perfectly reasonable.

            How many times have you declared that the legally elected (and reelected) president of the United States is DELIBERATELY destroying the country? How many times have you claimed the guy is in league with Islamic terrorists to destroy the American way of life? That he is a “communist,” a “fascist,” a “blame America first” devotee? That he WANTS to crush and humble America and the West?

            That you and a couple of others here are claiming that Chico has “lost all credibility” over this anthrax thing, while giving a pass to Warner with his many outlandish exaggerations and wild-eyed claims over the years, is really quite amusing. You fuckers wouldn’t know credibility if it hit you upside the head with a shovel.

            Tell me, Jim, exactly what you disagree with that this nutbar wrote on the “RenewAmerica” site:

            http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roth/140612

          • jim_m

            Yes, I think obama is deliberately destroying this nation.

            Some things he believes in ideologically, but has no evidence that they are true. He is deliberately destroying the coal industry. He has blocked Keystone, despite the fact that piping oil is far safer for the environment than trucking it.

            Other things he does because he believes that the US should not be in a position of leadership. He has F’d up foreign policy so badly that it will take a decade at least for the US to regain any international stature or trust.

            And I am not going to any dumbass site that I never heard of or visited to tell you anything about it.

          • Brucehenry

            Well you’re missing a chance to see what your delusional wildeyed conspiracy theories sound like to others lol.

          • jim_m

            It isn’t wild-eyed conspiracy to suggest that obama has been using the federal government to oppress people who oppose him. Lois Lerner is direct evidence of the truth of that. There are 300+ dead people in Mexico that are proof that obama was illegally selling guns to Mexican drug cartels. There are financial institutions who have come forward and claimed that his admin is pressuring them to not do business with legal, legitimate businesses because the admin feels that those businesses are undesireable.

            These aren’t conspiracy theories. These are really going on. Just because you choose to ignore them because your ideological agenda is advanced by them does not make them untrue.

          • Brucehenry

            I posted the link to the nutbar site because it sounds just like you. You refuse to read it. That’s up to you.

            Obama has taken actions, and failed to take other actions, in ways that are open to criticism, even valid conservative criticism. Among them perhaps the three issues you mention above. But you have many times claimed outlandish nonsense, like the President is deliberately ruining America, that he hates America and “Americanism,” (whatever that is in your mind), that he is in league with our enemies to destroy the west and the US in particular, yada yada ad nauseum. You routinely excuse Warner’s wolf-crying and outrageous drumbeating and rabblerousing.

            Then you have the audacity to question someone else’s credibility. You’re a fucking hoot.

          • jim_m

            I have not claimed that he is in league with our enemies. I have claimed that he appeases our enemies and sucks up to them, not that he is in league with them. Show me where I have claimed this.

            And yes, it is obvious that he hates America. Why else does it need to be “Fundamentally transformed”, why else is the US Constitution “Seriously flawed”? Why was he raised at the knees of communists like Frank Marshall and had adult association with anti-American domestic terrorists? He associates with these people because he believes like they do. People do not usually go into business or have their political careers launched by people with whom they have fundamental ideological disagreements.

            I have reasons for my claims, Chico and you have a hat.

          • Brucehenry

            Bogus reasons, but reasons I’m sure you sincerely believe.

          • jim_m

            More than your hat.

            So admit now that you too believe that Cheney plotted the anthrax attacks. Silence will be taken as an admission.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I don’t believe that but you can take whatever I say or don’t say as whatever you wish lol. You always do anyway. What a hoot.

          • jim_m

            You don’t believe what, Bruce?

            Can’t bring yourself to criticize Chico can you?

          • Brucehenry

            I have said that to believe Cheney plotted the anthrax attacks is rather far fetched.

            It is certainly no MORE far fetched than to believe a legally elected and reelected President is deliberately trying to destroy America.

          • jim_m

            I have explained what I meant by that and it differs from what you claim. Much like your bogus claim that I have said that obama has conspired with our enemies, a claim you have yet to provide even the slimmest bit of proof of.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh gee I’m sorry that’s what your claims “boil down to.” Lol.

          • jim_m

            At least you are starting to admit how deliberately dishonest your arguments are.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m modeling them after yours.

          • jim_m

            Too poorly educated to have an original thought, eh?

          • Brucehenry

            Guess so.

          • jim_m

            The difference between an honest argument and dishonest is often the context. Your’s are dishonest by that context, and now admittedly so.

          • Brucehenry

            “Your’s” is why I type so slowly.

          • jim_m

            Typing isn’t the only thing slow about you, apparently.

          • Brucehenry

            Gud wun

          • jim_m

            OK, Bruce, let’s play.

            obama says that he wants to “fundamentally transform America”. Obviously, this does not mean that he wants to preserve America. So let us try to understand what he wants to do by his actions:

            He has stood in the way of energy independence by blocking keystone and imposing EPA regulations designed to destroy the coal industry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aTf5gjvNvo

            He has “reformed” student loans so that students are now saddled with mountains of debt that they cannot discharge and which they have little hope of paying off in an economy where they can find no jobs. This debt will preclude them from entering the housing market, one of the traditional mainstays of our economy.

            His actions on the economy have prolonged and exacerbated the recession. We are now at a 35+ year low in labor participation rate. The official unemployment rate is kept low by manipulating the numbers to remove people who do not have jobs but were working just a few years ago. These people are not unemployed by choice, they are unemployed because obama has mishandled the economy.

            Increases in the minimum wage have priced teenagers out of the economy. Teenage unemployment is at record levels.

            His IRS has deliberately oppressed political opposition to the point that a person supporting certain political groups is more than 1000% more likely to be audited than anyone else in the country.

            You claim that this ideologically driven behavior that is severely damaging to our economy and to our trust of government is building the nation up? Even if the outcomes are not what he desired (I sincerely doubt that the outcome of the IRS activity is anything other than exactly what he wanted), they are certainly the direct result of his policies.

            Yes obama is destroying the nation and that doesn’t even get into the damage he has done to our standing abroad.

          • Morton Stump

            “I have said that to believe Cheney plotted the anthrax attacks is rather far fetched.”

            “Far fetched?”

            So you actually believe Dick Cheney, puppeteer of all things American, actually sort of-may-have-far-fetchedly orchestrated the anthrax attacks?

            Wow.

            “It is certainly no MORE far fetched than to believe a legally elected and reelected President is deliberately trying to destroy America.”

            Interesting.

            George W. Bush was “a legally elected and reelected President.”

            I’m quite sure you were much less skeptical when the 9-11 attacks occurred.

            Frigging hypocrite.

          • jim_m

            My reasons come with sworn congressional testimony. You have a freaking baseball cap and Chico’s hallucinations.

            Your claim that my position is no different than his is a testimony to how deeply dishonest every argument you make is.

          • Jwb10001

            Do you deny that Obama targeted an American citizen and hit him with a drone? That is sadly a fact not a delusion printed on a hat. If you think that is the sort of thing our president should be doing then it’s no wonder you think we off base.

          • Jwb10001

            Obama calls it “fundamentally transforming America” it’s a simple matter of semantics.

          • Brucehenry

            Many presidential candidates have promised to fundamentally transform America. Few, when elected, actually did so.

            Lincoln did. FDR did. LBJ. Reagan, for sure.

            Neither Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, nor Obama have done anything LIKE fundamentally transforming America no matter what any of them may have said.

          • jim_m

            Not true. I suspect that Reagan and FDR promised to return America to its economic strength and vitality not to remake it in some fascist image as obama has promised.

            Also, what obama has promised is not what most people want, which is an America that has no power abroad and where Americans are dependent upon the government for their basic needs. Nor is America going to appreciate the coming economic collapse when the full consequences of obama’s irrational expansion of the monetary base becomes evident.

          • Jwb10001

            Most presidents mean to effect positive change not the sort of change that leaves the country with record low work force participation rates, an IRS that is used as a weapon, failed foreign policy, a complete cluster fark of a healthcare overhaul, etc. But as a complete partisan I’m sure you can defend or deflect all of that away.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Plenty of room in that troofer tent for you too, hemorrhoid.

          • Commander_Chico

            As I’ve said before, I don’t care whether you believe me or not about being a veteran, as long as I get my retirement check from your taxes.

          • jim_m

            I don’t believe you are getting anything from the government except welfare. I think your whole claim to being a vet is bogus. I think you are full of crap from head to toe and nothing you claim is true and those things you claim the most frequently are the ones most likely to be lies.

          • Jwb10001

            No concern there Chico no one with half a brain believes you.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            You’re rather late to that [doubting chica's soi disant veteran status] party.

          • jim_m

            I was willing to give the parasite something of the benefit of the doubt. Now I cannot believe a single word that comes from him.

          • jim_m

            You confuse ideologically driven hate for truth and evidence.

            Pony up a link from Leahy blaming Cheney.

          • Retired military

            Here you go chico

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Ha Ha!

      • jim_m

        And Chico wants the mass murder of millions. This is what you and obama wanted – mass murder of civilians by islamist militias. This is what you wanted because this is what everyone said would happen with a precipitous withdrawal by obama.

        What you wanted most of all is to make the sacrifices of all those soldiers lives to have been in vain. Congrats. You are getting what you wanted.

  • jim_m

    For all the leftists who think that Iraq was always a losing proposition here is a comment from someone who was actually there

    I remember what Iraq was like in late 2008, when I left. My unit, the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment had largely cleared out one of the last areas of al-Qaeda dominion in Iraq. At high cost we had taken thousands of square kilometers back from enemy control, broken the back of enemy resistance, and given the local population the chance to live something approaching a normal life. Want a measure of our success? When we arrived in November 2007, in Diyala Province (labeled the Islamic Caliphate of Iraq by the al-Qaeda forces in control) every time any convoy rolled out of the gate, it had a greater than 25 percent chance of enemy contact — IEDs, ambushes, or sniper fire. When we left in late September 2008, that chance was down to approximately 1 percent.

    Good men died making that progress. Friends and brothers, all of them.

    But wait… there’s more:

    The situation was stable, and — here’s the key — sustainable. Yes, to sustain it would have required the continued presence of American troops, and those troops may have sustained occasional additional casualties, but that’s the price we pay to secure hard-won victories.

    And lest the cowards amongst us like Chico say that this is unacceptable, a less anti-American generation managed to do it before:

    Look at Korea. Our South Korean ally was so stubborn, so difficult to deal with, that it initially refused the armistice agreement that ended the most brutal phase of the Korean war, requiring America to essentially force compliance. What followed — as an allied Army continued to stare across the DMZ at hundreds of thousands of hostile troops — was a long-term low-intensity conflict that cost at least 98 additional American combat deaths and 814 American non-combat deaths. Violence flared again along the DMZ in the 1960s, including one
    incident when a North Korean MiG shot down an American electronics warfare aircraft, killing 31 airmen. I’ve served in South Korea, and just a short walk around Seoul demonstrates the value — the humanitarian necessity — of the American sacrifice in that country.

    Should we have pulled out of Korea and left what was to become one of Asia’s most vibrant democracies and one of the world’s top economies (with a vibrant Christian community) to be swallowed into the abyss of North Korean totalitarianism? If President Obama had followed President Eisenhower, that’s exactly what he would have done — and proclaimed success even as South Korean cities burned.

    Yep. obama and today’s left would have sacrificed millions of people into the slavery that is N Korea and they would have eliminated one of the world’s most productive and successful democracies. They would have sacrificed it on the alters of their egos and celebrated the defeat of our military, much like they are doing today.

  • Retired military

    Hey Obama the 80s called and they want their “hard drive crash” excuse back.

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=recover+data+after+hard+drive+crash

  • Brucehenry
    • jim_m

      So it’s Bush’s fault that obama was incapable of negotiating the same status of forces agreement that Bush did.

      Riiiiiiiight.

      The fact that obama lacked the prestige and authority to carry off his obligations is no one’s fault but his own.

      Your second link carries on about some ahistorical bullshit that Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Why should we take anything such a hyper partisan a-hole says seriously? It’s like linking to Chico about the anthrax attacks.

      • Brucehenry

        The Stonekettle link is from a vet who was there. A huge majority of military personnel at the time of the invasion, polling showed,were under the impression it was in revenge for, or because, Saddam had had something to do with 9/11. Where do you think these kids got that idea?

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          The rockshibboleth is from a crackpot who suffers one of the worst cases of BDS ever seen on the internet.

        • jim_m

          So polling shows that people fell for dem bullshit and that is your standard for truth? I suppose you believe that the obamacare website is perfect because Dear Leader tell you that it is so. What a lying ass you are.

          Truth is the truth. There is no defense in saying that this guy was wrong just like a whole mess of other ill informed people, therefore we should accept his judgement, which is based off of his misinformation because he thinks like a whole bunch of ignorant people.

          WTF kind of reasoning i that? Oh yeah, it is the reasoning of someone who failed to finish high school.

          • Brucehenry

            Well the kind of reasoning you describe would be wack, so it’s a good thing I’m not using that kind.

            You can’t fucking read, but I’ll take your word for it that you have a private university education.

            The Stonekettle guy is saying that the Bush administration played on the post 9/11 hurt, anger, and desire for revenge against Muslim countries — any Muslim countries — to sell the Iraq adventure not only to the public but to the troops who had to fight it. And they did a damn good job of it, since polls at the time showed something like 80% of the troops thought the Iraq war was a direct response to 9/11.

            Everybody knows this, Jim. Cheney’s assertion of the “meeting in Prague,” the bullshit about yellowcake that might make the next smoking gun a mushroom cloud, Powell’s brazen lies at the UN showing imaginary “labs” that were supposedly manufacturing biological weapons; all to conflate the post-9/11 fear and loathing with their preferred target.

            This Stonekettle guy is still very pissed — M. Soi Disant says he has BDS — because the same old kooks who were SO FUCKING WRONG in the first place are now claiming they were right all along.

            Read it slowly, maybe you can get what it actually means and not what your schizophrenic reading comprehension tells you it says. Concentrate.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Ha Ha!

          • jim_m

            Liar.

            What your delusional and ignorant hero stated:

            I know what they told us, sure, Saddam Hussein attacked America on 9-11. Right?

            Not that Bush played upon people’s emotions that Iraq was to blame and that Iraq attacked the US.

            This is factually false and easily proven to be so. No amount of your explaining will make what this imbecile said any different.

          • Brucehenry

            I guess the Stonekettle guy figures that that’s pretty much what all the smoke and mirrors “boiled down to,” Jim. Surely you understand when a guy rephrases what another guy said.

          • jim_m

            He doesn’t state that. He states directly that this was the reason and uses that lie to build his entire argument.

            It is one thing when I am interpreting what you say in a back and forth conversation. It is quite another to make a claim about a historical fact that is utterly false and easily proven so. I do the former and your hero does the latter.

            It is not surprising to me that you lack the wit to see the difference (or are too dishonest to admit to the difference).

          • Brucehenry

            What’s unsurprising is the fact that you rationalize that kind of argument when you do it but feel it is totally out of line when others do.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, like I said, you conveniently ignore the difference between the two contexts. No surprise because we already know you to be a dishonest and ignorant debater.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          The Stonekettle link is from a [soi disant] vet who was [claims to have been] there [and who has a foaming case of BDS].

          FIFY

    • jim_m

      In fact Iraq is sooooo much Bush’s fault that

      In 2011, the situation in Iraq was so good that the Obama administration
      was actually trying to take credit for it, with Vice President Joe
      Biden declaring that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of
      this administration.”

      So we see that Bruce and Chico are full of crap because they were claiming that all the success was due to obama just 3 years ago and now that obama has screwed the whole thing up, they now change their tune and declare that everything is the fault of Bush. If the success 3 years ago was due to obama the subsequent failure is his alone.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        We’ve known that brucehemorrhoid and chica were full of shit for a long time…

      • Brucehenry

        I never claimed all the success was due to Obama, or even that there WAS any “success” to attribute to anyone. Neither, to my recollection, did Chico, but I could be wrong.

        See, the Purple Microdot you must be constantly ingesting keeps you from remembering that when Joe Biden says something, it’s Joe Biden talking, not me.

        If Biden claimed “credit” for Iraq he’s as crazy as you guys have been saying he is.

  • Sam Spade

    I have started laying plans for my house-sized nuclear & EMP proof bunker and 30-year food supply. The Kenyan-born imposter in the White House has not only destabilized the Middle East to the point where it may not ever fully recover from resurgent Islamic extremism on a huge scale, but Muslim extremists living in the West will now be emboldened to spark their own uprising – a sort of modern fifth column if you like. As a former soldier, I will certainly not allow my sons to be drafted to fight in this madness if it gets that far.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE