BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE
REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS, CRANKY INSISTED, "I'VE BEEN CALLED WORSE."
"SHE HAS!" BILL CLINTON LAUGHED. "SHE REALLY HAS! AND USUALLY BY ME."
The bombs keep getting dropped, the war keeps dragging on.
The latest wave of bombings began in August of 2014 and have continued daily.
They've not 'won' any war, have they?
What if all that energy had been spent -- or even half of it -- working towards a diplomatic solution?
What if Barack had spent two years working on
Ben Connable (NATIONAL INTEREST) argues:
Three years of engagement with Sunni Arab Iraqis, analysis of Sunni Iraqi media and a recent trip to Baghdad with former ambassador Ryan Crocker’s Task Force for the Future of Iraqhave convinced me of two things. First, most Sunni and a number of Shia Arabs are hungry for more direct U.S. involvement in the Iraq’s political reconciliation process. Second, while Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi has genuine intent to foster reconciliation, he does not have the political power to make it happen. Worse, as he struggles to form a new cabinet, he is rapidly losing the support of the Iraqi leaders he will most need to effect change. While the winds of political influence can quickly shift in Baghdad, it seems most likely that reconciliation will remain at best a secondary issue while the government contends with Sadrist protestors, wavering reform efforts and the omnipresent threat of Shia militias. These “alligators closest to the boat” continue to distract from the crucial process of reconciling the Sunnis with their government. It is time for the United States to step in and take the lead for reconciliation in order to bolster the tactical fight against ISIL and to ensure Iraq does not further destabilize.
Two years focusing on diplomacy? Two years easing Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi towards national reconciliation in Iraq? Tying in weapons shipments to concrete achievements towards national reconciliation?
That could have had an impact.
It could have destroyed any justification for the Islamic State being in Iraq.
They get their support as a response to the persecution of Sunnis in Iraq.
National reconciliation is not a new goal of the US government.
When Congress demanded Bully Boy Bush provide measurements for measuring "success" in Iraq (the White House benchmarks), national reconciliation was on that short list.
But nearly a decade later and there's been no national reconciliation.
Failure to achieve that was supposed to result in the US government cutting off aid to Iraq -- financial and military.
Never happened.
Maybe members of Congress could explain why?
Back in September of 2007, Maura Reynolds (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reports:
The report on the benchmarks was mandated by Congress this year as a condition for continuing to fund military operations in Iraq.
But the specific measures, including legislative goals for the Iraqi parliament, were first outlined last year by the Iraqi government and embraced by Bush in January.
Between July and September, the Iraqi government showed significant improvement on one benchmark: legislation to address the status of those who had belonged to Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party. In late August, the leaders of Iraq's five main political groups agreed on draft legislation, which the administration considered adequate to move the issue to the "satisfactory progress" category in the report.
However, the deal still must be adopted by the Iraqi parliament, and its fate remains uncertain.
In a conference call with reporters, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate, said that after months of anticipation, the benchmark report was disappointing.
"You don't even have to go to the benchmarks to realize what an abject failure this policy has been," Biden said.
Joe Biden was right in 2007 but those words also can be applied to the current White House policy.
And that draft legislation on the Ba'ath Party?
Never passed.
Nine years later and it's still not passed.
So maybe the US Congress want to explain why the measurements were never applied as they were supposed to be? Or why the Iraq War continues to be funded?
The latest wave of bombings began in August of 2014 and have continued daily.
They've not 'won' any war, have they?
What if all that energy had been spent -- or even half of it -- working towards a diplomatic solution?
What if Barack had spent two years working on
Ben Connable (NATIONAL INTEREST) argues:
Three years of engagement with Sunni Arab Iraqis, analysis of Sunni Iraqi media and a recent trip to Baghdad with former ambassador Ryan Crocker’s Task Force for the Future of Iraqhave convinced me of two things. First, most Sunni and a number of Shia Arabs are hungry for more direct U.S. involvement in the Iraq’s political reconciliation process. Second, while Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi has genuine intent to foster reconciliation, he does not have the political power to make it happen. Worse, as he struggles to form a new cabinet, he is rapidly losing the support of the Iraqi leaders he will most need to effect change. While the winds of political influence can quickly shift in Baghdad, it seems most likely that reconciliation will remain at best a secondary issue while the government contends with Sadrist protestors, wavering reform efforts and the omnipresent threat of Shia militias. These “alligators closest to the boat” continue to distract from the crucial process of reconciling the Sunnis with their government. It is time for the United States to step in and take the lead for reconciliation in order to bolster the tactical fight against ISIL and to ensure Iraq does not further destabilize.
Two years focusing on diplomacy? Two years easing Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi towards national reconciliation in Iraq? Tying in weapons shipments to concrete achievements towards national reconciliation?
That could have had an impact.
It could have destroyed any justification for the Islamic State being in Iraq.
They get their support as a response to the persecution of Sunnis in Iraq.
National reconciliation is not a new goal of the US government.
When Congress demanded Bully Boy Bush provide measurements for measuring "success" in Iraq (the White House benchmarks), national reconciliation was on that short list.
But nearly a decade later and there's been no national reconciliation.
Failure to achieve that was supposed to result in the US government cutting off aid to Iraq -- financial and military.
Never happened.
Maybe members of Congress could explain why?
Back in September of 2007, Maura Reynolds (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reports:
The report on the benchmarks was mandated by Congress this year as a condition for continuing to fund military operations in Iraq.
But the specific measures, including legislative goals for the Iraqi parliament, were first outlined last year by the Iraqi government and embraced by Bush in January.
Between July and September, the Iraqi government showed significant improvement on one benchmark: legislation to address the status of those who had belonged to Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath Party. In late August, the leaders of Iraq's five main political groups agreed on draft legislation, which the administration considered adequate to move the issue to the "satisfactory progress" category in the report.
However, the deal still must be adopted by the Iraqi parliament, and its fate remains uncertain.
In a conference call with reporters, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a presidential candidate, said that after months of anticipation, the benchmark report was disappointing.
"You don't even have to go to the benchmarks to realize what an abject failure this policy has been," Biden said.
Joe Biden was right in 2007 but those words also can be applied to the current White House policy.
And that draft legislation on the Ba'ath Party?
Never passed.
Nine years later and it's still not passed.
So maybe the US Congress want to explain why the measurements were never applied as they were supposed to be? Or why the Iraq War continues to be funded?
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
