AT A DENNY'S IN DES MOINES, IOWA THIS MORNING, CRANKY EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS THAT HER WINNING WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
"FIRST THEY IGNORE YOU, THEN THEY RIDICULE YOU, THEN THEY FIGHT YOU, THEN YOU WIN AND THEY ARE YOUR SLAVES FOR LIFE, YOU CRUSH THEM AND KILL THEIR SPIRIT! BOW DOWN BITCHES! BOW DOWN BITCHES!"
HILLARY THEN LET OUT A SCARY LAUGH THAT SOUNDED LIKE A DEATH RATTLE AND LEFT SEVERAL BABIES CRYING AND GROWN MEN AND WOMEN IN TEARS.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
From Iraq's former vice president to the United States' current one Joe Biden. Joe gave a speech on Thursday -- here for the full text, here for our criticism of some of it.
Yasmeen Sami Alamiri (Al Arabiya News) weighs in on the speech:
Last week, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said that while facing the ongoing threats of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the only way forward is with a strong, united Iraqi government, free of factions and sectarian divisions. The sentiment is not a new one—in fact, it is the cornerstone of the administration’s policy on Iraq—keep Iraq united to keep Iraq strong. However, for Biden personally, the policy which he now champions is a far cry from his push for the federalization of an Iraq broken into Sunni, Shia and Kurdish zones.
Biden’s speech Thursday at National Defense University in Washington DC, framed itself as almost a parting address on the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies on Iraq, as the administration enters the final phase of its term. The farewell speech on Iraq is likely not nearly as romantic or optimistic as either Obama or Biden would have hoped—both now say they opposed the initial war in Iraq and both were eager to see it end.
The unfortunate reality, however, is that nearly 13 years into the conflict; the United States is still needed in Iraq—now more than ever because of the grave threat that ISIS poses in the oil-rich country. In his remarks, Biden assures “for all the years I spent in dealing with Iraqi public officials in the Iraqi Government, we knew for certain without a united Iraqi Government, there was no possibility, none, of defeating ISIL [another abbreviation for ISIS].”
The rave endorsement for a united Iraqi government came just days before Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi makes his first visit to the White House in his current capacity.
Yerevan Saeed (Rudaw) notes Kurdish reaction has been mixed between ridiculing Biden over his comments regarding one-united Iraq and bemoaning Joe walking away from his 2006 plan for a federation in Iraq composes of three regions:
“Shia don't want to be ruled by Sunnis, Sunnis don't want to be ruled by Shia, Kurds don't want to be ruled by Arabs. Iraq unity is a joke,” was the online response Biden received from one Kurd.
“We want what Iraqis want: a united, federal and democratic Iraq that is defined by its own constitution, where power is shared among all Iraqi communities, where a sovereign government exercises command and control over the forces in the field,” Biden said in his remarks at the National Defense University in Washington.
In 2006 when he was Senator, Biden proposed a bill asking for the creation of three regions in Iraq, divided along ethnic and sectarian lines, as solution for the continued bloodshed in the country. The plan called for three Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions.
[. . .]
Another twitter user named Andrew Thiel reminded Biden of his 2006 plan: “When Joe Biden said we should split Iraq into 3 countries, sunni, shiite, and kurd, I said it was an idea worth exploring.”
Of Joe's Thursday speech, Xinhau reports:
Vice President Joseph Biden said on Thursday that U.S.-led airstrikes have helped Iraqi forces halt the offensive by the extremist Islamic State (IS) group in the Arab country, with its "aura of invincibility" pierced.
"The jury's still out," Biden said at the National Defense University in Washington D.C. "It's not over yet, but the momentum is in the right direction."
The right direction?
IANS reports the Islamic State executed 33 people in Ramadi. and that:
ANI adds, "An Iraqi provincial officer has claimed that the Islamic State (IS) has captured several districts in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, in a recent hour-long attack, killing 10 Iraqi troops and wounding Genneral Qassim al-Muhammadi, the head of the Iraqi military operation in Anbar province." Anadolu Agency reports the Islamic State has blown up Albu Farraj Bridge which "connects Ramadi city with the international highway."
It was all supposed to be so different. Erin Cunningham and Mustafa Salim (Washington Post via Stars and Stripes) report:
In a visit to Habbaniyah air base in Anbar on Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi had vowed to defeat Islamic State militants in the province. Pro-government forces claimed victory over the jihadists in the northern city of Tikrit last month. It marked a serious blow to the group, which seeks to capture and hold territory to build its version of an Islamic caliphate.
But in Ramadi, the battle raged on at least two fronts on Friday — and the government was losing ground, officials said. The militants already control most of the province.
The battle over whether or not Ramadi and Anbar Province should have been the next target continues despite the start of operations in Anbar, Nancy A. Youssef (Daily Beast) notes:
U.S. officials are urging Iraqi forces to keeping fighting north along the Tigris River and while Iraqis want to shift toward the Euphrates, two military officials told the Daily Beast. At issue is what is more important—going after a major Islamic State stronghold or expanding the security buffer around the capital, the nation’s economic and political keystone.
The decision over which target to attack has deep implications in Washington and Baghdad. Attacking to the north, towards oil-rich Baiji, could keep the hard-won momentum against ISIS rolling, but any setback could be crushing for the still weak Iraqi forces. It would also leave Baghdad’s western flank exposed. Attacking Anbar instead would secure that flank, but could also stall the larger campaign, leave Kurdish troops and American fighter jets battling ISIS practically alone, while strengthening Iranian-backed militias’ influence in Baghdad.
From Biden to Barack, Tariq Alhomayed (Asharq al-Awsat) offers:
The reality is that Obama has an incorrect view of the region, and this is something that has become increasingly clear since he took office. He is always wrong on our region, and has made the biggest mistakes here, and these mistakes have had major consequences.
Obama rushed to withdraw from Iraq, and now here we see him returning once again. He played down the Syrian revolution and Assad’s crimes. He talked about “red lines” but Assad has crossed each and every one of these, while Obama has done nothing. He played down the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) only to subsequently be forced to acknowledge the reality of the situation, although he still had enough time to blame his country’s intelligence services for failing to realize this earlier.
[. . .]
So, Obama thinks that the threat to the region is not Iran, but rather an absence of internal reform. This is simply wrong, and demonstrates worrying double standards.
In 2009, when Obama was already in office, the “Green Movement” broke out in Iran. The Iranian authorities violently suppressed the protests, including through the force of arms. Many protesters were killed, and many more arrested. All the while, Obama looked on and did nothing. Indeed, some leading members of this revolt remain behind bars until today. Since then, Iran has not carried out any significant internal reform. During the same period, Gulf states—and particularly Saudi Arabia—have moved forward with the internal reform process.
There is no deal with Iran yet. There is a framework for a possible deal which might (or might not) be reached in June.
Supposed 'internationalists' like Medea I Need Attention Benjamin have, in the past, called out US dominance in the region but today these same Medea Benjamins rush to applaud US dominance and ignore the Arabic reaction.
See people like Medea, they don't really oppose imperialism.
They want it.
They want to harness it.
They applaud it when it's done their way.
They aren't really for democracy, they just want their way.
They're spoiled brats who could care less about the wants or desires of others.
Noah Browning (Reuters) notes the discontent with Barack in the region and that even Arab Spring activists are criticizing Barack. From his report:
The tentative rapprochement between Tehran and Washington has convinced many Gulf Arabs that a new regional axis is taking shape that will make them vulnerable to Iranian intrigue.
Saudi Arabia's leadership and many of its people have taken heart from its military campaign in neighbouring Yemen. Its air strikes, mounted with Arab allies, has targeted the Iran-allied Houthi militia which controls most of Yemen - and received U.S. approval.
"The public demand in Saudi Arabia right now is not for more democracy, but to handle the external threats," Saudi commentator Jamal Khashoggi said.
"The Saudis feel more assured since they took matters into their own hands. The issue that was bothering Saudi Arabia linked to the (nuclear) deal was that it was going to leave the Iranians unchecked in the region - that part is being handled today, not by the Americans, but by the Saudis."
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"As Unacceptably-long Wait Times for Veterans Persi..."
"Freedom In A Time Of Mental Slavery (David DeGraw)..."
"Anti-Gay Ugandan Extremist Martin Ssempa is U.S. C..."
"Look how they try to use Iraq again""
"Joe Biden spins on Iraq"
"What a friend we have in Joy Behar"
"Food and kids"
"community - laws of robotics and party rights"
"Jon Hamm: Thug that CBS and AP rush to protect"
"Idiot of the Week"
"THIS JUST IN! WHERE'S CARVILLE'S LITTLE BLUE DRESS?"
"Who'll be sleeping on the rollaway in the Lincoln Bedroom?"