WHY DO SO MANY PEOPLE CONSIDER CRANKY CLINTON A LIAR?
BECAUSE SHE CAN'T STOP LYING!
APPEARING ON A NBC PROGRAM THAT WASN'T SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, CRANKY INSISTED THIS WEEK:
There have been seven investigations led mostly by Republicans in the
Congress. And they were nonpartisan and they reached conclusions that
first of all I and nobody did anything wrong but there were changes we
could make.
AS U.S.A. TODAY MAKES CLEAR, THIS IS PURE FANTASY, PURE SPIN, PURE HORSE S**T -- OR AS A LAUGHING BIG DAWG BILL CLINTON TOLD US, "PURE HILLARY S**T. OH,
SHE'S GONNA' BE MAD WHEN SHE READS THAT!"
WE READ THE FORMER PRESIDENT U.S.A. TODAY'S CONCLUSION:
It may be Clinton’s opinion that no one did anything wrong, but the fact
is independent, bipartisan reports found “poor performance” by senior
department officials left the temporary U.S. diplomatic facility in
Benghazi “particularly vulnerable” for attack.
"OH, THAT'S BAD FOR HILLY," HE LAUGHED, "BAD, BAD, BAD."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
At Huffington Post, Libertarian Doug Bandow, at best, sports ignorance, and, at worst, flat out lies:
Bush continued to support the Maliki government even as it
ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective
break-up. In 2007 U.S. military adviser Emma Sky wrote of the U.S.
military's frustration "by what they viewed as the schemes of Maliki and
his inner circle to actively sabotage our efforts to draw Sunnis out of
the insurgency." Al-Qaeda in Iraq survived, mutating into the Islamic
State. The Bush administration then became one of the Islamic State's
chief armorers when Iraqi soldiers fled before ISIS forces, abandoning
their expensive, high-tech weapons which U.S. aircraft had to destroy
last year.
Third, President Bush failed to win Iraqi approval of a
continuing U.S. military presence and governing Status of Forces
Agreement. With Americans ready to leave and Iraqis determined to move
on, Bush planned an American exit. Retired Army Chief of Staff Gen.
Raymond Odierno explained: "us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated
in 2008 by the Bush administration. And that was always the plan, we
had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty." Indeed,
while Republican candidates now treat this departure as a failure--Jeb
Bush proclaimed "that premature withdrawal was the fatal
error"--attempting to stay would have been much worse. Washington would
have had leverage only by threatening to withdraw its garrison, which
the Maliki government desired. U.S. troops would have had little impact
on Iraqi political developments, unless augmented and deployed in
anti-insurgency operations, which Americans did not support. And a
continuing military occupation would have provided radicals from every
sectarian viewpoint with a target.
First off, Odierno's comments conflict with others. When a conflict
occurs, you tend to go with the people who were actually in the room.
Odierno did not take part in the negotiations. Brett McGurk, Condi
Rice and others -- who were actually involved in the negotiations (this
was a diplomatic effort, not a military one) -- have stated differently
and they are correct.
Not only were they in the room but their remarks are also accurate based on the public record.
Bully Boy Bush negotiated the SOFA for three years. Why three years?
It replaced the United Nations mandate.
That provided the legal cover for the US troops to be in Iraq.
The UN mandate had been a yearly agreement.
At the end of 2006, Nouri signed off on it for another year.
The Iraqi Parliament was furious.
Nouri promised he would get their approval next time.
At the end of 2007, he did not.
It was becoming a political issue.
For that reason, the agreement was a three year agreement.
(And don't forget that Barack tried to extend it.)
That's the reality.
Reality is hard for Doug Barlow so he lies, "Bush continued to support
the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the
stage for Iraq's effective break-up."
The ruthless targeting?
You mean in 2010?
After Nouri's secret torture prisons were exposed?
But Barack, Joe Biden and Samantha Power demanded Nouri continue as prime minister?
Even after Nouri lost the election to Ayad Allawi?
Is that what liar Doug Bandow means?
Is that what the cheap, little hustler means?
I'm not seeing any world leaders with cleans hands when it comes to Iraq.
I also think it's less than honest when Barlow cites Emma Sky's book --
The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq.
-- and portrays Odierno as supporting US troops leaving at the end of
2011 when Sky notes on page 311, "He believed twenty thousand or so US
troops were needed to say in Iraq in post-2011 to train Iraqi security
forces and to provide the psychological support to maintain a level of
stability. He envisaged a long-term strategic partnership between the
two countries."
Doug Bandow will most likely get away with his lie because the American
media has ignored Iraq and even should Emma Sky's book sell a million
copies domestically -- and be hugely popular at public and school
libraries -- it still won't reach most Americans.
Charlie Rose has never brought Emma Sky on his program to discuss the book.
In part because he can't handle the truths she tells and in part because he's so strongly anti-woman.
In Canada, she can get on TV and radio. Let's again note her August appearance on
Kevin Sylvester's This Sunday Edition (CBC).
Let's excerpt the section on the 2010 election -- when Barack's
president and Nouri loses. Wasn't Bully Boy Bush who "continued to
support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis,
setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up" then.
Emma Sky: And that national election was a very closely contested
election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate
in that election. They'd become convinced that politics was the way
forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and
not violence. To people who had previously been insurgents, people
who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that
election. And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki,
lost by 2 seats. And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by
Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to
move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and
no sectarianism. And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a
lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.
Kevin Sylvester: People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.
Emma Sky: Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be
part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they
wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus.
And Maliki refused to accept the results. He just said, "It is not
right." He wanted a recount. He tried to use de-Ba'athification to
eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes
that they had gained. And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat.
And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system
about what to do? So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the
US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political
process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the
government for thirty days. And he didn't think Allawi would be able to
do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the
process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third
candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that
was his recommendation.
Kevin Sylvester: Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden
-- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will
support and then they do a complete switch around. What happened?
Emma Sky: Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got
experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to
be there. He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general
who'd been there for year after year after year.
Kevin Sylvester: Chris Hill.
Emma Sky: And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia
strongman. Maliki's our man. Maliki's our friend. Maliki will give us a
follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.' So it looks
as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end
Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation. And the problem
-- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki. People were
very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian,
that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through
votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each
time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national
election." So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were
really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him. So when Biden made
clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this
caused a huge upset with Iraqiya. They began to fear that America was
plotting with Iran in secret agreement. So they moved further and
further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with
Maliki. And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya,
they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided
this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage
because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war
through the 'surge.' But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians
pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him.
And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a
second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of
the country by the end of 2011. So during this period, Americans got
outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp
because they'd guaranteed his second term.
Kevin Sylvester: Should-should the Obama administration been paying
more attention? Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris
Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you
describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on
the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something. This is a guy you
definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq. How much of what has
happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration?
Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack
Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it
-- not Hillary.] How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is
at their feet?
Emma Sky: Well, you know, I think they have to take some
responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010. And
Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq. She did appoint the
ambassador [no, she did not] but she wasn't involved in Iraq because
President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and
Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in
ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other
and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood
Iraq it would have been Obama himself. You know, he understands
identity more than many people. He understands multiple identities and
how identities can change. He understands the potential of people to
change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe
Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the
British. That's how things are." So it is unfortunate that when the
American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war. For
me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics --
the poisonous politics. And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous
politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama
administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to
go after his rivals. He was determined he was never going to lose an
election again. So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism
and pushed them out of the political process. He reneged on his
promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al
Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as
Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.] He didn't pay
them. He subverted the judiciary. And just ended up causing these mass
Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State
could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!" And sadly -- and tragically,
many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."
And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's
better.
That's Barack, that's on Barack.
Again, I don't believe any leader's hands are blood free when it comes to Iraq.
RECOMMENDED: "
Iraq snapshot"
"
Isakson Statement on Committee Approval of Departm..."
"
Operation Inherent Failure"
"
Iraq snapshot"
"
Forgotten Ramadi"
"
Kat's Korner The triumphant return of Janet"
"
Hejira"
"
Hillary's enuich"
"
State wants more e-mails from Hillary"
"
Empire"
"
Who authorized it?"
"
What will liar Kevin Drum do now?"
"
Hillary versus Joe"
"
Minority Report"
"
The reviews for Janet's Unbreakable"
"
heroes reborn"
"
Janet's back"
"
Even her aides are liars"
"
Janet"
"
Janet's UNBREAKABLE"
"
The one and only Janet Jackson"
"
Thoughts on Janet Jackson"
"
granny clinton has no real appeal"
"
The Barack Economy"
"
My favorite ballad"
"
THIS JUST IN! BARRY ON HILLARY!"
"
He's not fond of Hillary"
Neil Naessens 
