Thursday, November 19, 2015




 Yes, more bombings.

It's apparently the only thing in Barack's tool box.

More bombings at a time when Robert Burns (AP) estimates the average number of bombs dropped on Iraq and Syria by coalition forces in one month is 2228, that the US government is spending $11.1 million a day of taxpayer dollars and has spent $5 billion alone "since August 2014."  

And what is the result?

The Associated Press words it carefully:  "But what has been the result? In a word, stalemate, although U.S. military officials say they see the tide gradually turning in their favor."

In straight forward words?

Operation Inherent Failure.

On CNN this week, we had the always ready to wrap her legs around a war Christian Amanpour insisting on "an honest conversation"

She was speaking to Anderson Cooper on Monday, during CNN's endless Paris coverage, and insisting that Barack Obama's strategy or plan for addressing the Islamic State was a failure.

It is a failure. 

How many moths have we been calling it Operation Inhernet Failure here?

Thanks for joining the conversation, Christiane, but I won't let you hijack it.

Barack's 'plan' has been non-stop bombings.  It is a military plan.

Despite the fact that he insisted two months before he started the bombings that the only answer was a political solution (June 19, 2014, he said it).

So Barack's 'plan' is a failure but it's a failure because he's spent about 16 months bombing and finding other countries to bomb Iraq.

He's failed tto address the issues in any way that have resulted in a political solution.

Now if the whores who see their poster boy Barack as more important than Iraqi life could have been honest, I wouldn't be alone in making this argument.

But the left or 'left' seems paralyzed when it comes to sticking up for any belief if it conflicts with their It Girl Barack.

 The military plan he's executed was always going to be a failure.

If, like the War Hawks, you've accepted the military plan of Barack's as the answer, then of course you will insist for more military action.

Niles Williamson (WSWS) notes the one-note response the media is presenting:

Less than 24 hours after the terrorist attack by ISIS in Paris on Friday night killed 129 people and wounded hundreds more, the chief liberal opinion writers in the United States are calling for a massive escalation of the imperialist interventions in Syria and Iraq.
[. . .]
In their drive for an expanded war, no serious questions are raised about what lies behind the attacks, or about the impact of more than 14 years of unending war in the Middle East as part of the efforts of the US and its allies to assert hegemonic control over the region and its strategic resources.
Among the chief warmongers are the New York Times’ Roger Cohen and the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen, two journalists who represent what passes for liberal democratic opinion in the United States.
Over the last two decades there has not been a single American military intervention or imperialist provocation that either Cohen has not supported. In their endorsement and promotion of intervention in Iraq in 2003 on the basis of lies about nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction,” they bear significant responsibility for the catastrophe in the Middle East which they now seek to escalate.

If you want to talk about war and further war, endorsing it, the media has a spot for you front and center.  But if you want to question this war -- not to increase military action but to insist upon political solutions -- there's no space for you among all the papers and all the channels throughout the United States.

The conformist cry for more war passes not only for 'insight' but also for 'diversity' in the conformist and limited media landscape that bullies the people.

RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"