The former senator and former Marine says Hillary needs to provide details to support her claim.
There are no details.
It's just another lie Hillary got caught in.
A lie of her own making.
Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, November 17, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, an American
idiot shares how bored she is by any talk of Iraq, and -- worse --
Bustle publishes the idiot, Bernie Sanders issues a statement, and much
more.
Saturday, former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders took to the stage for the lowest rated political party debate so far this year.
We noted some of it in Sunday's snapshot.
Today, Bustle let Jqcqueline Derks flaunt her stupidity.
Derks felt too much time was spent on Iraq and sees it all as ancient history.
That's her opinion.
I disagree.
But it's her opinion.
Her opinion doesn't make her stupid.
The fact that she doesn't know the facts makes her stupid.
She writes of Sanders:
Clearly, the removal of Saddam Hussein had negative consequences like the escalation of sectarian violence. But despite ISIS's claim of statehood, it does not operate in the international order like a country, nor is it recognized as such. There is no regime to overturn. It's a non-state entity. It's difficult to understand why Sanders' brought this up in the midst of the Iraq discussion that wasn't explicitly referencing ISIS in Syria. Sanders' point simply added confusion to his already lackluster defense plan.
Oh, you stupid little twit.
The Islamic State is about overturning the Iraq regime -- in Iraq, that's what it's about.
If the dumb ass knew a damn thing about the persecution of the Sunnis, or the US government's willingnees to go along with that persecution, she'd understand why the Islamic State got a toe-hold in Iraq to begin with.
Go to the archives here, we said it was coming.
We noted in the prison breaks of 2010, for example, that the prisoners -- Sunnis -- were being aided -- post prison-break -- by the attacks on the Sunnis.
Prison breaks meant Sunnis turned their eyes and kept their mouths shut about prisoners.
They didn't turn them in.
That was the beginning of a significant shift.
The Sunnis were wrongly imprisoned
I'd love to see the dumb ass write about that.
They were disappeared -- as happened in Chile under thug Pinochet.
And who were the arrested?
Usually, they were the brother, the sister, the child, the mother or father of the suspect.
The suspect.
Not anyone convicted.
A suspect.
And when the Iraqi forces couldn't find the suspect, they grabbed family members and hauled them off.
They were disappeared.
If they were women, as Parliament established in the fall of 2012, they were beaten and raped in prison.
Bustle never showed any interest in that, did they?
This is what providing the breeding ground for the Islamic State.
Sunnis were persecuted, they were not a part of the government, and they had no stake in it as a result.
Which is why, even to this day, you get the attitude expressed by many Sunnis in Iraq that the Islamic State's battle with Iraqi forces has nothing to do with them.
Derks is apparently a Clinton supporter judging by how delicately -- and sparsely -- she treats Clinton.
Derks does write:
No longer are Bush or al-Maliki in positions of power, so this should not be the focus of debate talking points. Clinton might not like the reality that resulted from their actions, but she must accept it — after all, she did vote for the war authorization.
And she did more than that, you stupid idiot.
2010?
Nouri al-Maliki lost the election.
He's only in place because the State Dept negotiated The Erbil Government -- an extra-constitutional agreement (even Nouri agrees with that) which went around the Iraqi voters and the Iraqi Constitution to give Nouri a second term.
Who was the Secretary of State then?
Oh, it was Hillary Clinton.
It's past time that 'democratic' Democrat Hillary was asked about her role in overturning the will of the Iraqi people as expressed at the ballot box in 2010.
Way past time.
Nouri's thuggery was well known by 2010.
Human rights didn't concern Hillary any more than the will of the Iraqi people did.
Dumb ass Derks seems to think the Islamic State somehow took root in Iraq for no reason at all.
She's an idiot who refuses to connect consequences to actions.
Of O'Malley, she writes:
Pointing out who voted for the war is problematic, as it brings a decade-old issue back into the centerfold, distracting from current events. And the information that was available in 2003 and today is drastically different. Asking "what if we hadn't?" won't change a thing. History isn't a science experiment that we can run two tests to find out which method works best. We did the test, and we have our result.
You know what, Derks?
F**K YOU.
How the hell dare you compare the tragedy -- the ongoing tragedy -- that is the Iraq War, their suffering, to a quiz.
You stupid, stupid idiot.
The Iraq War -- the ongoing Iraq War -- is not a quiz or a game.
It is a war.
Iraqis are dying every damn day.
I'm really sorry that you're stupidity makes you one of the dumbest jack asses to ever type online.
But that's not my problem, it's your problem.
And you are grossly insulting to the suffering of the Iraqi people.
You don't even appear to grasp the American sacrifice involved.
Not on the part of Hillary, of course, all she lost for the Iraq War was her soul, integrity and the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
But thousands of Americans that she okayed sending to fight in Iraq with her 2002 vote, thousands came back injured.
Approximately 5,000 died.
Does she even know that Joshua Wheeler died last month in the Iraq War.
For her, it's all over.
It's over because the snotty little brat is bored.
Well we're bored with her and her strong sense of stupidity and entitlement.
We're bored with her gross insensitivity to the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people.
And, reality check, Hillary may says her vote was a "mistake" but she's failed to ever say how she's learned from it.
Today, the US Defense Dept announced their daily bombings of Iraq:
Yesterday, Elise Viebeck (Washington Post) reported US President Barack Obama declared that the Paris attacks would not cause a shift in Barack's method of addressing the Islamic State in Iraq. And she quoted Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes is quoted stating at the G20 Summit today, "We don’t believe U.S. troops are the answer to the problem. The further introduction of U.S. troops to fully reengage in ground combat in the Middle East is not the way to deal with this challenge."
Now Ben Rhodes wants to insist that's not enough?
Well the ones supporting bombings -- in the US Congress -- generally feel that US boots on the ground are needed in combat. In large numbers.
Jody Seaburn (Austin-American Statesman) notes today that "especially hawkish critics like U.S. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham who call for the United States to send ground forces to Iraq and Syria. We could follow their advice and put tens of thousands of American and allied troops in Iraq — for the third time — and they could take Ramadi and Mosul from Islamic State forces, and we could capture territory in Syria as well, but then what?"
June 19, 2014, Barack publicly insisted a political solution was the only way to end the crises in Iraq.
Yet, in August 2014, when he implemented his 'plan,' Barack completely ignored the political solution.
The tragedy of Paris leaves people wanting to do something.
And to continue bombing will lead supporters asking for an expansion of the military approach.
Barack's had 15 months and counting to work on a political solution.
He's failed.
Not from hard work that didn't work out but from refusing to seek the needed political solution.
That's why Barack was insisting in June and July of 2014 that Iraq needed a national guard that represented all aspects of the society.
But he never made bombings conditional upon this being created.
And all this time later, bills for creating a national guard cannot pass the Iraqi Parliament.
The tragedy in Paris rightly horrifies the world.
But in terms of Iraq, the answer is not more military action on the part of the US.
The answer is the same as it was in June 2014: A political solution that creates an inclusive and representative government.
But no one wants to talk about that.
The State Dept doesn't even want to talk publicly about Iraq.
Here's spokesperson Mark Toner at today's State Dept press briefing.
QUESTION: Last week, Kurdish forces, Peshmerga, retook Sinjar or Shingal. The question is, do you have any immediate plans with KRG to help return the refugee to the city?
MR TONER: No, and I don’t – no, I don’t want to be too overly – you’re right that they have been – I think they still are continuing to clean up or to mop up in Sinjar. I don’t have an operational report for you or an on-the-ground report to give to you. I know we continue to support the Peshmerga-led offensive there, and this is – they’ve made tremendous strides and great success. I don’t know if the – if Sinjar is yet fully liberated. I’d leave that to folks in the field who can speak to that. But certainly, as – if we look forward and we are able to – the Iraqi Government is able to reestablish control of the city, we always look to that end to reestablish good governance and to allow refugees to return.
And that was that.
Sinjar is apparently retaken and no one wants to talk about that victory at the State Dept.
Nor are there apparently any plans in returning refugees to the city -- or any State Dept interest in the issue.
That says everything.
Senator Bernie Sanders was short changed by the idiot Derks as we noted earlier.
As a result, we'll include this press release his campaign issued today:
The senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate also denounced “cheap political talk” and “demagoguery and fear mongering.” He urged Americans not to “turn our backs on refugees” fleeing the terrorist organization.
“Every American has been appalled and disgusted by the attack against the people of Paris by the terrorist organization ISIS. I know all of us send our condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones. And we pray for the recovery of all those who were injured, many of them seriously,” Sanders told an audience of more than 7,000 at the Cleveland State University’s Wolstein Center.
“In my view, now is the time for developing a serious and effective approach to destroy ISIS. Now is not the time for taking cheap political advantage of this tragedy. Now is the time – as President Obama is trying to do – to unite the world in an organized campaign against ISIS that will eliminate the stain of ISIS from this world,” Sanders added. “But let me also say that now is not the time for demagoguery and fear mongering. What terrorism is about is trying to instill terror and fear into the hearts of people. And we will not let that happen. We will not be terrorized or live in fear. During these difficult times, we will not succumb to Islamophobia. We will not turn our backs on the refugees who are fleeing Syria and Afghanistan. We will do what we do best and that is be Americans – fighting racism, fighting xenophobia, fighting fear.”
Sanders said the United States must learn from history. He disputed an assertion by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus who said the United States was projecting weakness on the global stage. “Well, in 2002 we had a president, George W. Bush, who was very tough – but not very smart. He invaded Iraq and we are reaping the consequences of that war today: 6,700 dead Americans, hundreds of thousands wounded, $5 trillion spent and massive instability in the region – chaos which allowed the rise of ISIS. Yes, we have to be tough but not stupid. Yes, a worldwide coalition must defeat ISIS. But no, the United States must not be involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East,” Sanders said.
Sanders also stressed that the focus on the Islamic State must not divert attention from critically important issues at home in the United States. “I understand there are some who think that because of this attack we no longer have the capability to address the collapse of the American middle class. I disagree. Our country and the world can and will defeat ISIS and at the same time we will rebuild our disappearing middle class,” Sanders said.
Watch the video:
Iraq
Saturday, former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders took to the stage for the lowest rated political party debate so far this year.
We noted some of it in Sunday's snapshot.
Today, Bustle let Jqcqueline Derks flaunt her stupidity.
Derks felt too much time was spent on Iraq and sees it all as ancient history.
That's her opinion.
I disagree.
But it's her opinion.
Her opinion doesn't make her stupid.
The fact that she doesn't know the facts makes her stupid.
She writes of Sanders:
Clearly, the removal of Saddam Hussein had negative consequences like the escalation of sectarian violence. But despite ISIS's claim of statehood, it does not operate in the international order like a country, nor is it recognized as such. There is no regime to overturn. It's a non-state entity. It's difficult to understand why Sanders' brought this up in the midst of the Iraq discussion that wasn't explicitly referencing ISIS in Syria. Sanders' point simply added confusion to his already lackluster defense plan.
Oh, you stupid little twit.
The Islamic State is about overturning the Iraq regime -- in Iraq, that's what it's about.
If the dumb ass knew a damn thing about the persecution of the Sunnis, or the US government's willingnees to go along with that persecution, she'd understand why the Islamic State got a toe-hold in Iraq to begin with.
Go to the archives here, we said it was coming.
We noted in the prison breaks of 2010, for example, that the prisoners -- Sunnis -- were being aided -- post prison-break -- by the attacks on the Sunnis.
Prison breaks meant Sunnis turned their eyes and kept their mouths shut about prisoners.
They didn't turn them in.
That was the beginning of a significant shift.
The Sunnis were wrongly imprisoned
I'd love to see the dumb ass write about that.
They were disappeared -- as happened in Chile under thug Pinochet.
And who were the arrested?
Usually, they were the brother, the sister, the child, the mother or father of the suspect.
The suspect.
Not anyone convicted.
A suspect.
And when the Iraqi forces couldn't find the suspect, they grabbed family members and hauled them off.
They were disappeared.
If they were women, as Parliament established in the fall of 2012, they were beaten and raped in prison.
Bustle never showed any interest in that, did they?
This is what providing the breeding ground for the Islamic State.
Sunnis were persecuted, they were not a part of the government, and they had no stake in it as a result.
Which is why, even to this day, you get the attitude expressed by many Sunnis in Iraq that the Islamic State's battle with Iraqi forces has nothing to do with them.
Derks is apparently a Clinton supporter judging by how delicately -- and sparsely -- she treats Clinton.
Derks does write:
No longer are Bush or al-Maliki in positions of power, so this should not be the focus of debate talking points. Clinton might not like the reality that resulted from their actions, but she must accept it — after all, she did vote for the war authorization.
And she did more than that, you stupid idiot.
2010?
Nouri al-Maliki lost the election.
He's only in place because the State Dept negotiated The Erbil Government -- an extra-constitutional agreement (even Nouri agrees with that) which went around the Iraqi voters and the Iraqi Constitution to give Nouri a second term.
Who was the Secretary of State then?
Oh, it was Hillary Clinton.
It's past time that 'democratic' Democrat Hillary was asked about her role in overturning the will of the Iraqi people as expressed at the ballot box in 2010.
Way past time.
Nouri's thuggery was well known by 2010.
Human rights didn't concern Hillary any more than the will of the Iraqi people did.
Dumb ass Derks seems to think the Islamic State somehow took root in Iraq for no reason at all.
She's an idiot who refuses to connect consequences to actions.
Of O'Malley, she writes:
Pointing out who voted for the war is problematic, as it brings a decade-old issue back into the centerfold, distracting from current events. And the information that was available in 2003 and today is drastically different. Asking "what if we hadn't?" won't change a thing. History isn't a science experiment that we can run two tests to find out which method works best. We did the test, and we have our result.
You know what, Derks?
F**K YOU.
How the hell dare you compare the tragedy -- the ongoing tragedy -- that is the Iraq War, their suffering, to a quiz.
You stupid, stupid idiot.
The Iraq War -- the ongoing Iraq War -- is not a quiz or a game.
It is a war.
Iraqis are dying every damn day.
I'm really sorry that you're stupidity makes you one of the dumbest jack asses to ever type online.
But that's not my problem, it's your problem.
And you are grossly insulting to the suffering of the Iraqi people.
You don't even appear to grasp the American sacrifice involved.
Not on the part of Hillary, of course, all she lost for the Iraq War was her soul, integrity and the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
But thousands of Americans that she okayed sending to fight in Iraq with her 2002 vote, thousands came back injured.
Approximately 5,000 died.
Does she even know that Joshua Wheeler died last month in the Iraq War.
For her, it's all over.
It's over because the snotty little brat is bored.
Well we're bored with her and her strong sense of stupidity and entitlement.
We're bored with her gross insensitivity to the ongoing suffering of the Iraqi people.
And, reality check, Hillary may says her vote was a "mistake" but she's failed to ever say how she's learned from it.
Today, the US Defense Dept announced their daily bombings of Iraq:
Strikes in Iraq
Bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft and rocket artillery
conducted 13 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the
Iraqi government:
-- Near Baghdadi, two strikes
struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and
an ISIL homemade explosives cache.
-- Near Albu Hayat, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.
-- Near Fallujah, one strike destroyed an ISIL building.
-- Near Kisik, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Qayyarah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL weapons cache.
-- Near Ramadi, five strikes
destroyed six separate ISIL command and control nodes, damaged an ISIL
building and denied ISIL access to terrain.
-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed four ISIL vehicles.
Yesterday, Elise Viebeck (Washington Post) reported US President Barack Obama declared that the Paris attacks would not cause a shift in Barack's method of addressing the Islamic State in Iraq. And she quoted Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes is quoted stating at the G20 Summit today, "We don’t believe U.S. troops are the answer to the problem. The further introduction of U.S. troops to fully reengage in ground combat in the Middle East is not the way to deal with this challenge."
Now Ben Rhodes wants to insist that's not enough?
Well the ones supporting bombings -- in the US Congress -- generally feel that US boots on the ground are needed in combat. In large numbers.
Jody Seaburn (Austin-American Statesman) notes today that "especially hawkish critics like U.S. Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham who call for the United States to send ground forces to Iraq and Syria. We could follow their advice and put tens of thousands of American and allied troops in Iraq — for the third time — and they could take Ramadi and Mosul from Islamic State forces, and we could capture territory in Syria as well, but then what?"
June 19, 2014, Barack publicly insisted a political solution was the only way to end the crises in Iraq.
Yet, in August 2014, when he implemented his 'plan,' Barack completely ignored the political solution.
The tragedy of Paris leaves people wanting to do something.
And to continue bombing will lead supporters asking for an expansion of the military approach.
Barack's had 15 months and counting to work on a political solution.
He's failed.
Not from hard work that didn't work out but from refusing to seek the needed political solution.
That's why Barack was insisting in June and July of 2014 that Iraq needed a national guard that represented all aspects of the society.
But he never made bombings conditional upon this being created.
And all this time later, bills for creating a national guard cannot pass the Iraqi Parliament.
The tragedy in Paris rightly horrifies the world.
But in terms of Iraq, the answer is not more military action on the part of the US.
The answer is the same as it was in June 2014: A political solution that creates an inclusive and representative government.
But no one wants to talk about that.
The State Dept doesn't even want to talk publicly about Iraq.
Here's spokesperson Mark Toner at today's State Dept press briefing.
QUESTION: Last week, Kurdish forces, Peshmerga, retook Sinjar or Shingal. The question is, do you have any immediate plans with KRG to help return the refugee to the city?
MR TONER: No, and I don’t – no, I don’t want to be too overly – you’re right that they have been – I think they still are continuing to clean up or to mop up in Sinjar. I don’t have an operational report for you or an on-the-ground report to give to you. I know we continue to support the Peshmerga-led offensive there, and this is – they’ve made tremendous strides and great success. I don’t know if the – if Sinjar is yet fully liberated. I’d leave that to folks in the field who can speak to that. But certainly, as – if we look forward and we are able to – the Iraqi Government is able to reestablish control of the city, we always look to that end to reestablish good governance and to allow refugees to return.
And that was that.
Sinjar is apparently retaken and no one wants to talk about that victory at the State Dept.
Nor are there apparently any plans in returning refugees to the city -- or any State Dept interest in the issue.
That says everything.
Senator Bernie Sanders was short changed by the idiot Derks as we noted earlier.
As a result, we'll include this press release his campaign issued today:
CLEVELAND – Saying Americans are “appalled and
disgusted” by terrorist attacks in Paris, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on
Monday called for a concerted international effort to defeat the Islamic
State and “eliminate the stain of ISIS from this world.”
The senator and Democratic Party presidential candidate also denounced “cheap political talk” and “demagoguery and fear mongering.” He urged Americans not to “turn our backs on refugees” fleeing the terrorist organization.
“Every American has been appalled and disgusted by the attack against the people of Paris by the terrorist organization ISIS. I know all of us send our condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones. And we pray for the recovery of all those who were injured, many of them seriously,” Sanders told an audience of more than 7,000 at the Cleveland State University’s Wolstein Center.
“In my view, now is the time for developing a serious and effective approach to destroy ISIS. Now is not the time for taking cheap political advantage of this tragedy. Now is the time – as President Obama is trying to do – to unite the world in an organized campaign against ISIS that will eliminate the stain of ISIS from this world,” Sanders added. “But let me also say that now is not the time for demagoguery and fear mongering. What terrorism is about is trying to instill terror and fear into the hearts of people. And we will not let that happen. We will not be terrorized or live in fear. During these difficult times, we will not succumb to Islamophobia. We will not turn our backs on the refugees who are fleeing Syria and Afghanistan. We will do what we do best and that is be Americans – fighting racism, fighting xenophobia, fighting fear.”
Sanders said the United States must learn from history. He disputed an assertion by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus who said the United States was projecting weakness on the global stage. “Well, in 2002 we had a president, George W. Bush, who was very tough – but not very smart. He invaded Iraq and we are reaping the consequences of that war today: 6,700 dead Americans, hundreds of thousands wounded, $5 trillion spent and massive instability in the region – chaos which allowed the rise of ISIS. Yes, we have to be tough but not stupid. Yes, a worldwide coalition must defeat ISIS. But no, the United States must not be involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East,” Sanders said.
Sanders also stressed that the focus on the Islamic State must not divert attention from critically important issues at home in the United States. “I understand there are some who think that because of this attack we no longer have the capability to address the collapse of the American middle class. I disagree. Our country and the world can and will defeat ISIS and at the same time we will rebuild our disappearing middle class,” Sanders said.
Watch the video:
Iraq
