Wednesday, September 28, 2016

THIS JUST IN! CLINTON LIES!

BULLY BOY PRESS &   CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE




NEXT UP, PSYCHIC MIKE LEVINE ANNOUNCES WHERE JIMMY HOFFA WAS BURIED.





Jed Babbin (WASHINGTON TIMES) offers:

Our Pentagon leaders are reportedly readying a request to President Obama to send another 400 or 500 U.S. troops to Iraq. They would join the 4,400 there and be tasked to help the Iraqis retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State. (According to a Wall Street Journal report, there is an additional force of about 1,500 troops who guard the massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad, some of whom are sent on “special missions.”)
Whatever the troops’ mission, it is painfully obvious that our generals are still stuck on the nation-building strategy that we have pursued in both Iraq and Afghanistan since we invaded those countries in 2001 and 2003. It’s the same strategy that they are following now with the request for more troops to go to Iraq, and it’s just as wrong as it was in 2001.


Baddin's against nation building.

I am as well.  You can't build a government with a military.

But let's set that aside for just a moment.

Let's imagine Hillary Clinton becomes president.

This is a War Hawk belief -- they can build nations.

Barack's already trying.

But dropping bombs daily on Iraq does not form anything but chaos.

So should Hillary get to be president, let's hope there's some maturity in the country -- there wasn't under Barack -- and someone demands that she set goals.

Because if you're going to try nation building, you better be able to show results.

That's not "The leader we installed said . . ." 

Statements don't count.

Intentions don't count.

Only results count.

And if Hillary wants to do nation building, she better be held accountable.

(I have no idea if Donald Trump would try nation building.  Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would not engage in it.)

Over two years ago, Barack said he was helping Iraq.

There's still nothing to show for it.

The government's no better than it was then.

They did -- with little fanfare -- recently pass a de-Ba'athifcation law in the Parliament.

It wasn't needed.

L. Paul Bremer did that years ago -- it's cited as one of the biggest disasters of all actions taken after deciding to go to war on Iraq.

Barack has failed at national reconciliation in Iraq.

Why is that a surprise to anyone?

Bully Boy Bush failed at it as well.

As long as you give the (US-installed) government of Iraq what it wants, it's exile prime minister will not do a thing to foster national reconciliation.

Iraq has a very young population.

How many more exiles is the US going to be able to install as prime minister before the Iraqi people revolt?

I think it's nearing the point now.

And, as with most warning signs, everyone in the west is looking elsewhere.








Posted by at