WHERE IS THE IRAQ WAR HEADED NEXT? -by Seymour Hersh

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<table id="table4" bgcolor="#bf001f" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="44%"><br /> <tr><td width="181"><img src="http://www.geobop.com/education/911/images/mine/bush/nazi.jpg"><img src="http://www.geobop.com/education/911/images/mine/bush/nazi.jpg"></td><br /> <td bgcolor="#bf001f"><br /> <table id="table5" bordercolorlight="#BF001F" bordercolordark="#BF001F" bgcolor="#bf001f" border="5" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="335" width="200"><br /> <tr><br /> <td><br /> <img src="http://www.nypress.com/17/31/news&columns/BUSH-FEATURE-300.jpg" border="0" height="335" width="200"></td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /></table><p><img src="http://www.thisisrumorcontrol.org/files/030305photofinal.png"><br>

<hr noshade color="#D90000" size="12"></hr>

<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333">

"Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the President remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding.


“The President is more determined than ever to stay the course,” the former defense official said.

<h3>“He doesn’t feel any pain. Bush is a believer in the adage ‘People may suffer and die, but the Church advances.’ ” </h3>

He said that the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney.

<h3>“They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,”</h3>


<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="14"></hr>

[wm]http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nbc_today_sey_hersh_iraq_withdrawal_051129a.wmv[/wm]

<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="14"></hr>


[frame]http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/051205fa_fact[/frame]


<hr noshade color="#FF0000" size="14"></hr>
 
Last edited:
If we pull out of Iraq and a wmd goes off in downtown NYC killing thousands people will blame Bush for not finishing the mission. Dubya might be on some kinda religious headtrip but is that any different than the pilgrims leaving Europe to escape persecution? Iraq could not be left to develop wmd's Saddam tried to kill a American president this fool could not be left unchecked and neither can Syria and Iran.
 
nittie said:
If we pull out of Iraq and a wmd goes off in downtown NYC killing thousands people will blame Bush for not finishing the mission. Dubya might be on some kinda religious headtrip but is that any different than the pilgrims leaving Europe to escape persecution? Iraq could not be left to develop wmd's Saddam tried to kill a American president this fool could not be left unchecked and neither can Syria and Iran.

I thought you were against the war.
 
Gods_Favorite said:
I thought you were against the war.

I'm for the principal of this war, reform the Region. End all religious differences between East and West, stop reacting to terrorist attacks with police action . Form alliances on economic interest. I am against the conduct of the Bush admin. He should have executed this war much better than he has.
 
why are all the non reality based people the ones responding.

dont the choir care that they're being preached to?
 
I ask you what IS the principal of the war. If you recall, we entered the Iraq occupation.. er.. I mean war on the principle that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US with weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell went before the UN and stated this is the reason why we must remove Sadam from power. When no WMD were found and it was released that Iraq was nowhere close to acquiring them, then this war was about fighting terrorism. However, the insurgents who attacked us, (Bin Laden) is STILL free and most likely hiding in Afghanistan (sp).

What scares me is NOT the Administration's actions, but the Apathy of the American people. It seems as though we seem content on the fact that the US entered a war on false pretences. It seems as though the American people are not phased by the foreign policy practices that state we must go to war with Iraq in order to liberate the country, yet do nothing in countries like Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, or even Haiti. We seem that we went to this war based upon unreliable information and there has been no tangible course of action to correct this information breakdown.



nittie said:
I'm for the principal of this war, reform the Region. End all religious differences between East and West, stop reacting to terrorist attacks with police action . Form alliances on economic interest. I am against the conduct of the Bush admin. He should have executed this war much better than he has.
 
My guess is, the next front will be in Iran. Iran is developing a nuke and the leader said in a recent speech that Isreal should be "wiped off the face of the earth." Now the word is that Isreal is planning to hit Iran. If that happens, (when that happens) the United States will step in to defend Isreal and on we go. And it is most likely to happen in my opinion under the current president because democrat leadership have no stomach for war.

-VG
 
Great1 said:
I ask you what IS the principal of the war. If you recall, we entered the Iraq occupation.. er.. I mean war on the principle that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US with weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell went before the UN and stated this is the reason why we must remove Sadam from power. When no WMD were found and it was released that Iraq was nowhere close to acquiring them, then this war was about fighting terrorism. However, the insurgents who attacked us, (Bin Laden) is STILL free and most likely hiding in Afghanistan (sp).

What scares me is NOT the Administration's actions, but the Apathy of the American people. It seems as though we seem content on the fact that the US entered a war on false pretences. It seems as though the American people are not phased by the foreign policy practices that state we must go to war with Iraq in order to liberate the country, yet do nothing in countries like Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan, or even Haiti. We seem that we went to this war based upon unreliable information and there has been no tangible course of action to correct this information breakdown.


The principle is not honesty, integrity or fairness, it's survival pure and simple. Bush misled because if he told the truth he would bever get support for an invasion so he lied. There was no reason to invade an occupy Iraq except preventing Saddam or his heirs from getting nukes and using them against the U.S. if he waited until circumstances favored an invasion it might be too late.
 
You say there was NO REASON to invade an occupy Iraq. I stongly disagree with that notion. Was the principle of the war about protecting America or bolstering our political and economic dominance over the middle east region? Iraq is the third largest crude oil producers in that region (Saudia Arabia and Kuwait being higher.) From what I gathered from your statemts, Its OK the president possibly lied to the american people and to the world about the Iraq's capacity because he tried to prevent SAddam from gettng the nuclear capacity he never had. What's to say he is not lying now? Add to this argument, after the invasion, there was an investigation into finding these WMD. It was discovered that not only Iraq lack the capacity, but thet were no where close to acquiring them.

As I am sitting here typing this, I literally lost track of the number of reasons why we are in Iraq. First it was their linkage to 9/11, then it was preveing Saddam from aquiring WMD,then its about bringing freedon to Iraq, then it was "part of fighting terrorism." Speaking only for myself, feel very uncomfortable about the US having over 2000 US soldiers die for an occupation with no clear objective or true reason as to why they are there.

I also want to address this notion of "pre emptive stikes" Now, in theory, pre-emptive strikes are necessary to prevent any attacks on Ameican soil. HOWEVER, adequate/difinitive proof, I believe, is required to do so. When I say suffcient evidence, I do not mean wait to they actually have nuclear bombs. I am saying that you have evidence that they are making moves to acquiring WMD (e.g proof through a wiretap or other survailence that Iraq has communicated with certain countries to aquire nuclear material.)





nittie said:
The principle is not honesty, integrity or fairness, it's survival pure and simple. Bush misled because if he told the truth he would bever get support for an invasion so he lied. There was no reason to invade an occupy Iraq except preventing Saddam or his heirs from getting nukes and using them against the U.S. if he waited until circumstances favored an invasion it might be too late.
 
You say there was NO REASON to invade an occupy Iraq. I stongly disagree with that notion. Was the principle of the war about protecting America or bolstering our political and economic dominance over the middle east region?

I said there was no reason to invade other than survival. That includes maintaining our postion in the world. If we lost our influence what's to stop every rogue nation from developing nukes and using them? America is the only super power until China proves it is ready to lead we have to keep our dominance or all hell will break lose.


Its OK the president possibly lied to the american people and to the world about the Iraq's capacity because he tried to prevent SAddam from gettng the nuclear capacity he never had. What's to say he is not lying now? Add to this argument, after the invasion, there was an investigation into finding these WMD. It was discovered that not only Iraq lack the capacity, but thet were no where close to acquiring them.

If he ain't lying now he ain't doing his job, Presidents lie, they cheat, they steal, they kill, and they do it better than most people which is why they get to be President. Would you want a honest man in the Oval Office competing with Saddam, Kim, Osama? Seriously.
 
I am a little confused, are you saying we invaded Iraq to prove to the rest of the world that we are, for lack of a better phrase, the biggest and baddest bullies on the block? If that is the case, we are talking about supremacy and not survival. We are talking about the desire to rule over a region, not bring democracy to it. Essentially, we are talking about the afct this war was not about American Survival, its about bolstering the economic streghth of the 10% of the poulation that control 90% of the wealth.

Now don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in having and mainitaning a strong military presence. But there is a difference between strong military and stiff arming the rest of the world to show my superiority.
 
I am a little confused, are you saying we invaded Iraq to prove to the rest of the world that we are, for lack of a better phrase, the biggest and baddest bullies on the block? If that is the case, we are talking about supremacy and not survival. We are talking about the desire to rule over a region, not bring democracy to it. Essentially, we are talking about the afct this war was not about American Survival, its about bolstering the economic streghth of the 10% of the poulation that control 90% of the wealth.


lmao We don't prove anything to anyone. I agree there is a hint of supremacy to this but that is part of what makes this a great nation. The invasion ridded the world of a despot who might use his infrastructure to produce and pass on nukes to our enemies and it provided a way to introduce democracy to the Middle East thus improving our chances of survival.

Now don't get me wrong, I strongly believe in having and mainitaning a strong military presence. But there is a difference between strong military and stiff arming the rest of the world to show my superiority.


lmao like strong military presence doesn't equal stiff arming the rest of the world to show my superiority.
 
This goes back to my first post of but the Apathy of the American people. It seems as though we seem content on the fact that the US entered a war on false pretences. It seems as though the American people are not phased by the foreign policy practices that state we must go to war with Iraq in order to liberate the country, yet do nothing in countries like Somalia, Rwanda or the Sudan. Quiet as its kept, some of these dictator factions in these war torn african countries have a better infastructure of aquiring WMD than Iraq did before we invaded them. I'll go one step further, its widely known that Russia has activey sold some of its nuclear technology to the highest bidder. In my opinion, this war had nothing to do with "liberating a country" and less than nothing to do with "the safety of America" or its "survival". This had more to do with oil.

I keep hearing the defense of this prevntive strike. "We ridded the world of someone who could cause harm to the US" Yet, we have heard no DIFINITIVE strategy about Iran or N Korea, countries that Despise the US and have threateded to use thier nuclear capibility if they were to be invaded by the US. Now most people would probably say, because of our invasion, we made them think twice about crossing the US. WRONG. Many of these threats came AFTER the war. (Plus ad in the historical aspect that there is still "leftover tension" of the Iran/Iraq war. Iran cares very little for Iraq.)

In terms of teh Strong miliatry presence, (And I'm glad I gave you a laugh) but I think there is a difference. A strong miliatry presence means you have the manpower and techical abilities to defend your country and any threat against it. Stiffarming is forcefully imposing Prime example, Afghanastan was a strong miliatry presence becasue there was direct evidence that bin Laden and his army was in the mountain areas. Here I believe more troops are needed for that effort.

Stiffarming is falsely linking a country to the 9/11 attacks, to the anthrax scares and to falsely lead people to believe that they have WMD. Then going to war based not to defend the America, but for capitalist reasons.
 
This goes back to my first post of but the Apathy of the American people. It seems as though we seem content on the fact that the US entered a war on false pretences. It seems as though the American people are not phased by the foreign policy practices that state we must go to war with Iraq in order to liberate the country, yet do nothing in countries like Somalia, Rwanda or the Sudan. Quiet as its kept, some of these dictator factions in these war torn african countries have a better infastructure of aquiring WMD than Iraq did before we invaded them. I'll go one step further, its widely known that Russia has activey sold some of its nuclear technology to the highest bidder. In my opinion, this war had nothing to do with "liberating a country" and less than nothing to do with "the safety of America" or its "survival". This had more to do with oil.


I think I understand what you are saying about apathy, don't want to put words in your mouth, but could it be more of a loss of innocence than apathy? Is today's generation more sophisticated about the mean cynical world we live in? I think people would like to go back to an idealistic time when America stood for freedom and justice, I also think alot of people are realizing that was never the case. This country has always ignored and hate to say it, exploited weak countries, its the law of the jungle and we are kings of the jungle.
 
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333">
An update almost one year later from SEYMOUR M. HERSH the most plugged-in reporter in the world when it comes to US military, imperialism, foreign-policy, CIA skullduggery. No reporter has better sources. No reporter is more despised by US government officials and overworld crime families like the bush's. Cheney & Rumsfeld even tried to have the FBI break into Hersh's home
<blockquote><font size="3" color="#000000">
<b>AMY GOODMAN:</b> I wanted to start off with, is it true that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld attempted to break into your home?

<b>SEYMOUR HERSH:</b> Well, no, not literally, of course, but it is true that they asked the FBI to in 1975, when I was a reporter in Washington for The New York Times. I had written a story about, oh, some secret stuff involving the Navy and spying on Russia and intercepts. It was pretty sensitive stuff. It was given to me by people inside the bureaucracy who thought it was stupid, counterproductive and wasteful and dangerous, so there was a reason to write it. I mean, it wasn't as if I was just exposing something -- it had been the source of enormous dismay inside that we continued to do these provocative operations. This was at the end of the Vietnam War. And so, they got upset. Cheney and -- they were both -- one was Chief of Staff, one was his deputy. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense then........
<font size="2" color="#ff0000">Read the full interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/11/142250 </font></font>
</blockquote>

Hersh updates us on the Neo-Cons last stand
<b>"THE NEXT ACT"</b>
as their "Conquer Iraq" dreams go down the drain. The fact that Iran is "the winner" of this US occupation of Iraq makes the Neo-Cons more determined than ever to militarily attack Iran.
Fuck the US voting Public.
Fuck the House of Representatives.
Fuck the Senate.
The bombing of Iran starts............................................?????????????????????

</font>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
[WM]http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Late-Edition-Hersh-Iran-11-19-06.wmv[/WM]
<P>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
[frame]http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061127fa_fact[/frame]

<p>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="12"></hr>
<p>
 
Last edited:


A decade since the Iraq detour


12472971-mmmain.jpg







 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/IraqWarAnniversary/" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/IraqWarAnniversary/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
I think President Bush was setup as the fall guy for the Iraq war, it wasn't just his decision to make. There were many people that were involved that helped facilitate this disaster. As with Nazi Germany, it was many people besides Hitler that were involved in the Holocaust. However, once the war was over, there was an attempt to associate these acts with one person. However, the groundwork was being layed down many years before he arrived by many other people.


By associating your misdeeds with one person as the media is trying to do, other people, groups, or countries can maintain their reputation and ability to obtain sanctions against other countries or push for war in the future.


In essence, coverage of the Iraq War is to reinforce all the blame onto President Bush to improve the image of the U.S. which he has accepted. This person we are blaming for this mistake is no longer around, we were victimized by this guy; when the people involved are still around pushing the levers of power.

It is public relations 101 for a group to improve their image, associate something with one person that you expel from the group.
 
Last edited:

10 years after Iraq invasion, Sunnis who
backed Saddam chafe under Shiite rule




Bu6cQ.WiPh2.91.jpg

Sunnis in Ramadi, Iraq, protest against the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. They block
the roadway. | Roy Gutman/MCT



RAMADI, Iraq — Shortly before noon every Friday, men and boys with prayer rugs in hand tromp by the thousands through the main highway junction in the city of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, head down lanes meant for vehicular traffic and stake out patches of pavement. Soon they’re prostrating themselves as far as the eye can see.

It’s a massive show of civil disobedience that’s the most visible form of protests by Iraq’s Sunni Muslim minority against the Shiite Muslim-led government in Baghdad.

U.S. forces will remember Anbar province, of which Ramadi is the capital, as one of Iraq’s worst killing grounds, a place where Sunni supporters of Saddam Hussein gave way to al Qaida in Iraq, which all but governed the province until tribal sheikhs rebelled at the same time that the U.S. troop “surge” was beginning in 2007. Of the 4,486 Americans who died in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 30 percent fell in Anbar.

The province remains in rebellion, though a peaceful one.

Along both shoulders of the road, the tribal leaders have erected more than 100 canvas tents, where they display posters with their 17 demands, all couched as fitting within current legal order. There s a threat, however, of other means: A hand-painted banner at a political rally that followed a recent religious servicesummed up the mood best: “Beware the patient man, if he gets angry.”

Ten years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq is still a broken country. Its government is democratically elected, but nearly everyone sees it as dysfunctional, and many observers wonder whether the country can hold together and function as a normal state. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is widely criticized for what critics call his manipulation of the political process, though they concede that at least some of the problems he faces were inherited from the U.S. occupation.

Everyone is watching to see how he handles the Sunni protest in Anbar, which will have consequences for the country as a whole.

So far, Maliki has avoided direct confrontation and acquiesced to traffic being rerouted over secondary roads, even though the protest here blocks the main highway linking Baghdad with Jordan.

He’s denounced the protesters as “bubbleheads,” provoking a furor, but he’s also set up several committees to examine their demands, which are widely seen elsewhere in Iraq as legitimate. Among them: releasing all women held without charges on suspicion of aiding terrorists, moving detainees charged with crimes to provincial prisons, releasing male detainees arrested without charges, closing down military commands that Maliki set up without parliamentary approval, withdrawing the army from cities and limiting any prime minister’s tenure to two five-year terms.

Still, many in Anbar think that Maliki has gone out of his way to humiliate Sunnis, and the reaction is a rejection of the government and even of parliamentary representation.

The tension is great. The flags waving over the Ramadi highway are not the banner the new Iraq adopted after the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, but those that flew here when Saddam ruled.

Clearly, the central government would prefer that the rebellion receive no attention. A McClatchy reporter traveling to Ramadi was kept for seven hours at a military checkpoint on March 7 before being allowed to proceed. The next day, military authorities announced that foreign reporters were banned from traveling to Ramadi.

“We are not opposing the government,” said Rahim Khalil, 19, one of the protesters here. “We are at war with the government.”

A group of college students shot their hands into the air when a visiting reporter asked whether they’d prefer Saddam to the present government.

“In Saddam’s day, there was a government and law. Now there is no real government, or law,” one said.

Members of al Qaida in Iraq also attend the rallies. After the recent religious service and the political rally ended, the stage, which straddled the eastbound half of the highway, was open, and a small group of men who’d been hovering in the background, carrying black, jihadist flags, emerged. They announced that it was “time for al Qaida to come and start the beheadings.” Tribal leaders quickly ushered them off.

At the heart of the protest is the vast sectarian divide that splits Iraq, and the rest of the Middle East, between Sunni and Shiite. The Sunnis, who make up some 30 percent of Iraq’s 31.1 million population, resent that Maliki, a Shiite, has taken direct or indirect charge of all the security portfolios. They charge that he’s used the security forces to intimidate top Sunni politicians and to carry out a wave of arrests on dubious grounds.

Sunnis also resent the influence that Shiite-ruled Iran has over Iraqi policy, and they’re embittered at Maliki’s posture of “neutrality” in the Syrian rebellion, which they interpret as a fig leaf for support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, a follower of the Alawite branch of Shiism.

It’s not just Sunnis who are angry with Maliki, however. Ethnic Kurds, who compose at least 15 percent of the population, are enraged at his refusal to resolve issues regarding revenue sharing and oil sales by the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government. This past week, Kurdish ministers boycotted the Cabinet meeting over the government’s decision to approve a budget without Kurdish concurrence.

There’s even trouble among Shiites, who make up at least 60 percent of the population. Many are fed up with a government that has enormous income on tap from the country’s oil resources but has failed to deliver electricity, clean water and sewage, and is viewed as one of the most corrupt on Earth.

In the absence of economic and banking reforms, government spending dominates the economy, borrowing for local businesses is highly limited, there’s only a limited real estate market and some 40 percent of the working-age population is unemployed or underemployed.

Maliki attracts critics these days like a lightning rod. In a new book, “Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism,” British scholar Toby Dodge wrote that “such a weak and obviously corrupt state could, once again, provide a breeding ground for increased political violence.” The great danger for Iraq, he said, is that its democracy “will be swept aside because its institutions are not valued, or seen as worth defending.”

Not all of Iraq’s current problems are of Maliki’s doing. Many were identified during the nine years the U.S. controlled the country, something American officials here acknowledge. They blame in part a U.S. focus on trying to win Iraqi support for permanent military bases, or at least a robust security presence, rather than resolving problems.

They note, for example, that Sunni dissatisfaction is still fed by the decision in 2003 by L. Paul Bremer, the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, to ban Saddam’s Baath Party, dismantle the Iraqi military and fire higher-level Baath officials from government ministries. The move cost many Sunnis not only their employment but also their pensions, and it helped fuel the Sunni insurgency against the U.S. occupation.

Where Maliki gets direct blame, however, is the way he conducted himself after the elections of 2010, when he agreed to head an all-party government with his chief rival, Ayad Allawi, a Shiite who nevertheless had wide Sunni backing. Instead of governing jointly with Allawi, however, Maliki took charge of the top security posts, then went after his political rivals.

Within days of U.S. forces leaving the country in December 2011, Maliki sent tanks into the capital’s so-called Green Zone, the heavily fortified area where leading politicians live, and arrested bodyguards of the Sunni vice president, Tareq al Hashemi, whom he later accused of plotting bombings against civilian targets. Hashemi fled, first to Iraq’s Kurdish north, then to Turkey, where he remains. In September, an Iraqi court sentenced him, in absentia, to death.

Maliki also unleashed a wave of arrests of Sunnis for allegedly supporting terrorism. Allawi told McClatchy that Maliki’s security services had locked up more than 1,000 members of other political parties, detaining them in secret locations with no access to legal council, and used torture to extract confessions.

What sparked the latest Sunni protests was the arrest Dec. 19 of more than 100 security guards in the detail of Rafi al Issawi, Maliki’s finance minister and a Sunni. Many Iraqis saw the arrests as a likely prelude to the detention of Issawi himself. The blockade of the road began within days. On March 1, Issawi resigned, announcing his decision at Friday prayers in Ramadi.

Maliki’s government says it’s tried to respond to some of the protesters’ demands, releasing some people who’d been rounded up for terrorism. But few Sunnis think it’s enough.

“He responded to some of the 17 points,” said Khamis Abtan, a member of the Ramadi city council, and a political moderate. “He freed some of the innocent people, who were already set to be released. At the same time, he detained many new innocent people,” he told McClatchy.

Allawi is bitter. He said there were probably 100 members of his own party, the Iraqi National Accord, still in government jails, and possibly thousands from his Iraqiya coalition.

Moreover, he said members of his alliance increasingly were targeted for assassination. “Every single week, we are losing one or two or three people killed, assassinated. For the last four weeks,” he said.

If anyone doubts the ill-treatment of political detainees in jail, an Amnesty International report earlier this week documented widespread practices that in almost any advanced Western country would lead to a mistrial.

“Torture and other abuse of detainees has been one of the most persistent and widespread features of Iraq’s human rights landscape, and the government shows little inclination either to recognize its extent or take the measures necessary to consign such grave abuses to the past,” the report said.

In short, the protesters in Ramadi will have cause to remain on the highway for some time to come.


Email: rgutman@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @roygutmanmcc

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/15/186024/10-years-after-iraq-invasion-sunnis.html#storylink=cpy



 
Obama backs repeal of law that green-lighted Iraq War

Obama backs repeal of law that green-lighted Iraq War
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo News | Yahoo News
Tue, Jan 7, 2014

The law that green-lighted the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq is still on the books ― but maybe not for much longer if President Barack Obama has his way, the White House said on Tuesday, two years after he declared the war officially over.

“The Administration supports the repeal of the Iraq AUMF,” national security spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden told Yahoo News, referring to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Obama frequently cites the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq as one of his key foreign policy successes. He has repeatedly defended the pull-out, even as he pursues a strategy to leave only a residual force of maybe 8,000 to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014. His administration recently promised it would not put boots back on the ground in Iraq in response to the current bloody chaos that threatens its stability.

But leaving the Iraq military force authorization in place could probably come in handy if he, or a future president, wanted to send troops in.

The last serious attempt to roll back the law came in late 2011, when Sen. Rand Paul, R.-Ky., introduced an amendment to do so. On Nov. 29 of that year, the measure failed in a lopsided 67-30 vote with three lawmakers not voting. Senators of both parties told Yahoo News at the time that the White House had opposed repeal.

And when Obama laid out plans for overhauling the post-9/11 national security mechanisms in a May 2013 speech at the National Defense University, he promised to work with Congress to rewrite the AUMF for Afghanistan ― but was silent on the Iraq War law.

But “the Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any U.S. government activities and we therefore would fully support any move to repeal it,” a senior administration official told Yahoo News on Tuesday. “However, we have not prioritized proactively seeking to repeal it, because the effect would be entirely symbolic and we have many more pressing priorities to take up with Congress.”

Yahoo News had been asking the White House since a briefing with press secretary Jay Carney on June 13, 2012, to explain the president’s position on repealing the military force authorization. Officials declined to do so until Tuesday.

This is not to say that Obama had slyly been planning to send U.S. forces back into Iraq. He’s been clear, throughout his 2012 campaign and today, that he’s not interested in doing that. And there’s zero evidence that the U.S. public, and therefore, Congress has any appetite for Iraq War Version 2.0.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-backs-repeal-of-law-that-green-lighted-iraq-war-172954248.html
 
Getting contractors richer and helping white supremacy rule the world. Who will do something about the genocide to blacks that happened in Libya?? And why do they preach reconciliation to South Africa after white terrorist came in and killed and enslaved blacks in their own country? And still today the same terrorist are secretly killing blacks and becoming richer and richer for it.

It all sounds like Jonestown, when you think a white man calling himself God, staying high and doped up all the time, yet you have to call him father, and you actually think he knows what is best for your lives. Once these fools get threw tearing up other countries and unleash their hater of black men on America, we will have no one to help us. So we better be getting prepared to protect ourselves and not waste our blood on helping them to control us.

http://oneblacknation.webs.com/

http://blacknation.vpweb.com/default.html
1079kep.jpg
 





Before the Iraq invasion of 2003,
the US secretary of state, Colin Powell,
famously warned President George Bush that

“if you break it, you own it.”





 

Maliki or ISIS?

Neither looks good to Sunni Awakening veterans

The Sunni Arab fighters who stood against jihadis during the US war in Iraq
feel betrayed by Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
But they also fear the advance of ISIS.



<iframe width="590" height="332" src="http://launch.newsinc.com/?type=VideoPlayer/Single&widgetId=1&trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=csmonitor&videoId=26280859" frameborder="no" scrolling="no" noresize marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"></iframe>



The Christian Science Monitor
By Scott Peterson, Staff writer
June 18, 2014


Baghdad — The last time the Al Qaeda franchise raised its head in Iraq, its brutal tactics convinced many fellow Sunnis to take them on.

Back then, fresh-faced Abu Omar was a local leader of the US-backed "Sons of Iraq," trying to put a lid on Sunni militancy.



But today, as Sunni jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) advance across the country, he sits at home in a dark blue polo shirt playing with his children, unable to stop a storm that he says is threatening to engulf Iraq again.

ISIS is one problem. The group has posted videos it claims show it massacring Shiite Iraqi Army troops, while promising "justice" and basic services on its turf.

But the stunning ISIS advance is riding what some top Sunni politicians – echoed by local players like Abu Omar – say is a much wider “revolution” against the unabashedly Shiite-first policies of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. And this raises the specter of a return to sectarian bloodshed in Iraq.

“If no solution is found very soon, no one will be able to stop ISIS; they are getting very strong with tanks and equipment and manpower,” says Abu Omar, who asked that only this nickname be used.

He reckons that 60 to 70 percent of Iraq’s Sunnis “welcome that revolution” and have been “brainwashed” about the true violent nature of a group they support. “I am expecting worse than 2006-2007, if there is not a quick solution,” he says, adding that ISIS and other Sunni extremist cells are already in Baghdad.

“Rivers of blood will be in the street. The killing we will not be in the air [as rumors], but live," he warns.


A bloody history

Iraq has seen violent spasms for decades, and during 2006-2007 the United Nations estimated that the killing finally leveled off at 3,000 dead a month, with death squads cleansing Baghdad’s mixed neighborhoods of either Shiite or Sunni or Christian Arabs. Bodies were dumped on streets each morning, clearly tortured, sometimes with drills.

Mr. Maliki appeared on television Tuesday night with some Sunni leaders and politicians, in a show of Shiite-Sunni unity. And today he said of the Iraqi armed forces, which disintegrated during the ISIS onslaught: “We have now started our counteroffensive, regaining the initiative and striking back.”

During news reports, the pro-Maliki TV channel AFAQ lingers on images of bodies killed in the crisis, as patriotic songs speak of martyrdom and encourage Shiite volunteers: “My flag is still high,” goes one song, that also plays on the radio. “I am alive, but my funeral tent is [already] set up.”

Yet the Sunni Iraqis who were most effective against Sunni militants years ago are out of this fight, since ISIS will kill anyone they perceive as against them, says Abu Omar. He has lost relatives who were active in the original Sunni Awakening – known here by the Arabic term “Sahwa” – and still receives threats.

But the Awakening’s biggest blow came from Maliki himself, its leaders say. When US forces organized and paid the Sunni network, “Al Qaeda in Iraq became very, very weak,” says an older man who gave the name Abu Salwan, wearing the headdress and dishdasha traditional among Iraqi Sunnis.

But Maliki never trusted the armed Sunnis, and failed to pay them after the Americans handed the portfolio to the Iraqi government in 2010. “Within two to three months, the war against Sahwa started: they began assassinating and killing [members] in Sunni areas, and the government arrested Sahwa leaders,” says Abu Salwan.

That left the Sunni Awakening caught between pro-Maliki forces, and the Sunni Islamists they had sought to contain.


Broken promises

Of the 92,000 Awakening members, the government had promised to integrate 20 percent into the regular security force, find jobs for others, pay salaries, and of course keep them safe. None of those promises were kept. “When the Americans left, [government forces] killed who they chose to kill, stopped others, and then ignored the Sahwa,” says Abu Omar.

These Sunnis say signs of sectarianism in the capital make them afraid, with bearded and armed Shiite militiamen now manning checkpoints alongside Iraqi Army and police units, for example, and more frequent sightings of cars without license plates.

After ISIS threatened to attack Shiite holy shrines and called Maliki a “fool” who would be dealt with, Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called last Friday for Iraqis to arm in order to protect the nation and sacred shrines.

So the large numbers of Sunnis who they say support ISIS taking ground – and more moderate Sunni “revolutionaries” taking political control of those areas – may indicate lack of awareness of ISIS’ violent methods, say Awakening leaders.

Abu Omar says his relatives in areas captured by ISIS are “wrong” to be “happy because ISIS told them they will remove injustice.” They instead compiled computer databases of every one who has worked for the government, “and they won’t stop killing them,” he predicts.

Relatives in Mosul “never saw [ISIS] killing people,” just organizing services to help, says Abu Omar. “This is a good thing, to win people’s loyalty, to show the people of Mosul the nice face, and with this loyalty they will brainwash people to get some fighters with them.”

It is no surprise to Awakening leaders that Iraq’s Sunnis – a substantial minority that dominated, often harshly, during the reign of Saddam Hussein – are today ready to embrace a “revolution” against Maliki’s rule, no matter who carries it out.


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...ither-looks-good-to-Sunni-Awakening-veterans#



 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oyPv36iXwTY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Back
Top