Charles Krauthammer nails every point precisely in the current FUBAR situation with ISIS in Iraq and the Middle East. His “plan” has been weak and useless from the start, and his supposed 60 nation coalition worse than tepid in actual action and results. In the last six years Barack Obama, who somehow believes he is being gracious with the Arab region in keeping the U.S. military at a far distance, has managed to lose the trust of those Arab nations that counted us as trusted allies as they watch the radical Islamic caliphate inching closer to their countries. Krauthammer is far from amused at the MSM’s false premise when they encounter GOP candidates…
We are scraping bottom. Following six years of President Obama’s steady and determined withdrawal from the Middle East, America’s standing in the region has collapsed. And yet the question incessantly asked of the various presidential candidates is not about that. It’s a retrospective hypothetical: Would you have invaded Iraq in 2003 if you had known then what we know now?
First, the question is not just a hypothetical but an inherently impossible hypothetical. It contradicts itself. Had we known there were no weapons of mass destruction, the very question would not have arisen. The premise of the war — the basis for going to the U.N., to the Congress and, indeed, to the nation — was Iraq’s possession of WMD in violation of the central condition for the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. No WMD, no hypothetical to answer in the first place.
Second, the “if you knew then” question implicitly locates the origin and cause of the current disasters in 2003 . As if the fall of Ramadi was predetermined then, as if the author of the current regional collapse is George W. Bush.
This is nonsense. The fact is that by the end of Bush’s tenure the war had been won. You can argue that the price of that victory was too high. Fine. We can debate that until the end of time. But what is not debatable is that it was a victory. Bush bequeathed to Obama a success. By whose measure? By Obama’s. As he told the troops at Fort Bragg on Dec. 14, 2011, “We are leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” This was, said the president, a “moment of success.”
Which Obama proceeded to fully squander…
The MSM are trying their damnedest to make this 2016 election about Bush, and Bush was a republican, hence any GOP candidate is responsible for whatever was done in his administration. However, nevermind that at the 2016 mark this country will have been run (into the ground) from an eight year dictatorship of the communist/Progressive ass-backward Obama administration. Obama’s Middle East/Arab policies began under Hillary Clinton’s tenure in the State Department. She was primary in the Libya situation. The MSM wants the American people to be brainwashed into believing the Obama administration has had absolutely nothing to do with anything, least of all foreign policy in the Middle East, in the last six or more years. No, it is supposed to seem as if things were so screwed-up there from “Bush” that it was impossible and inevitable. Bullshit.
The MSM is obsessed with needling and hammering the current field of 2016 GOP candidates about “Knowing what we know now…” false premise over Pres. George W. Bush deciding to invade Iraq, and would these current POTUS hopefuls have made the same decision. I suppose it seems lopsided because the MSM isn’t asking democrat candidate Hillary Clinton, who voted for the invasion but now “regrets” doing so … because of knowing what she knows now, or something. But then, the MSM is not asking Hillary anything because she has not made herself accessible to them for quite a while now. And when she does it is completely on her strict terms, and they do not seem to mind being Hillary’s submissives very much.
Anyhow, what needs to be continually pointed out to Americans and the MSM is that the Iraq war was ‘won’ before George W. Bush left the Oval Office. As Charles Krauthammer at the National Review points out: Iraq’s Decline into Chaos Traces Back to 2011, Not 2003
As to the MSM’s, and future GOP primary and 2016 general election debate moderators, pressing “what if” false premise questions going forward…
Sen. Tom Cotton has the best answer for the GOP candidates: We shouldn’t be ashamed of the Iraq War
Cotton, while conceding that there are lessons to be learned from the conflict and that it might have been handled differently in retrospect, maintains that President George W. Bush made the best decision he could at the time based on the available intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s presumed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
“Knowing what we know now, I absolutely would have sent the Pacific Fleet out of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 4 to intercept the Japanese Fleet,” Cotton told the Washington Examiner during an interview in his Capitol Hill office. “I say that to highlight how foolish the question is. You don’t get to live life in reverse. What a leader has to do is make a decision, at the moment of decision, based on the best information he has. George Bush did that in 2002 and 2003 and he was supported by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and John Kerry and every western country’s intelligence agency.”
“There are lessons we can learn from the early days of the Iraq war. One is that we clearly should be more critically analytical about our approach to intelligence assessments,” Cotton added.
And Rep. Louie Gohmert: Bush would never have invaded Iraq if he knew Obama would come along and bungle it
“Everybody else wants to ask that question of, ‘Gee, would you have gone into Iraq if you’d known what you know now?’” … “If President Bush had known that he would have a total incompetent follow him that would not even be able to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq and start helping our enemies and just totally put the Middle East in chaos, then he would have to think twice about doing anything if he had known he would have such a total incompetent leader take over after him,” Gohmert said. “That should be the question.” … “I don’t trust this administration, I don’t want to give them any additional authority that Bush didn’t have”
That last remark was in regards to Obama’s bitching and moaning over Congress refusing him the AUMF he is demanding.
For the record: Stop It, Liberals: Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq Having WMDs
Iraq is what it is, past and present, but as we were warned/informed by, for example, Michelle Obama early on Obama would force us to change our history and our language and our traditions. The MSM has been and continues to be all too eager and joyful to privide the ink and paper … and the ‘free speech’ chains and whips … for that.
Saudi Arabia: While They Wait for the U.N. to Seat Them at Top of UNHRC, They Put Out ‘Want Ad’ for Eight More ‘Beheaders’
Yeah, you read that right…
Jobs classified as ‘religious functionaries’ at lower end of civil service scale.
85 reported executed so far this year, rivalling total for whole of 2014.
No special qualifications are needed for the jobs whose main role is “executing a judgment of death” but also involve performing amputations on those convicted of lesser offences, the advert, posted on the civil service jobs portal, said.
The Islamic kingdom is in the top five countries in the world for putting people to death, rights groups say. It ranked third in 2014, after China and Iran, and ahead of Iraq and the United States, according to Amnesty International figures.
A man beheaded on Sunday was the 85th person this year whose execution was recorded by the official Saudi Press Agency, compared to 88 in the whole of 2014, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). Amnesty said there were at least 90 executions last year.
Most were executed for murder, but 38 had committed drugs offences, HRW said. About half were Saudi and the others were from Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, India, Indonesia, Burma, Chad, Eritrea the Philippines and Sudan.
Saudi authorities have not said why the number of executions has increased so rapidly, but diplomats have speculated it may be because more judges have been appointed, allowing a backlog of appeal cases to be heard.
On another notable note, Saudi Arabia is seeking the top spot on the U.N. Human Rights Council…
While the HRC has often been dismissed for hosting nations with some of the worst human rights records in the world, its importance in the coming year could be critical to how the international community deals with atrocities in Syria and other Middle Eastern nations.
U.N. Watch, a nonprofit group that monitors the international body, disclosed Saudi Arabia’s intentions in a recent report and urged the United States to fight against it, describing the move as “the final nail in the coffin for the credibility” of the HRC.
“We urge U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power and EU foreign minister Federica Mogherini to denounce this despicable act of cynicism by a regime that beheads people in the town square, systematically oppresses women, Christians, and gays, and jails innocent bloggers like Raif Badawi for the crime of challenging the rulers’ radical brand of Wahabbist Islam,” Hillel Neuer, the group’s executive director, said in a recent statement.
Neuer compared the possible ascension of Saudi Arabia to the top slot to electing “a pyromaniac as the town fire chief.”
Germany currently heads the HRC, but its term ends in 2016. Elections will be held in early December 2015 for the 2016 term, according to a U.N. official.
The presidency will then rotate to a member of the U.N.’s Asian bloc, which includes Bangladesh, China, the United Arab Emirates, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Maldives, Pakistan, South Korea, Qatar, and Vietnam.
Human rights experts say that Saudi Arabia is not fit to lead the body, particularly amid a rise in executions under the newly crowned King Salman.
David Weinberg, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and lead author of recent report on Saudi human rights abuses, said the autocratic nation would make of mockery of the HRC.
Well, considering the UNHRC is already a useless POS, making a mockery of it is unavoidable because it does that job pretty damn good all on its own.
Ian McEwan’s scathing scolding of ‘free speech’ double-standards and the silencing of ‘free speech’ caused the graduating class and the university faculty to uncomfortably squirm in near total silence during his commencement address to them…
(NRO) – A rather uneventful college commencement season full of the usual platitudes and bromides was shaken up by British novelist Ian McEwan’s refreshingly challenging the zeitgeist of trigger warnings, free-speech zones, and campus censorship at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania this week.
McEwan did not shy away from addressing the current temper on campus, choosing to focus on the creeping group-think in faculty lounges and discussion sections instead of the all too easy targets of Russian crackdowns on free speech or the “industrial scale” state-sponsored censorship in China. McEwan directly confronted the problem of a country rooted in the tradition of free expression under the First Amendment meekly submitting to what he called “bi-polar thinking” — the eagerness of some to “not side with Charlie Hebdo because it might seem as if we’re endorsing George Bush’s War on Terror.”
McEwan criticized the cowardly behavior of six writers who withdrew from the PEN American Center’s annual gala over their discomfort with the organization’s support for Charlie Hebdo. He argued that the time to “remember your Voltaire” is precisely when confronted with scathing speech that “might not be to your taste” and said he was disappointed that “so many authors could not stand with courageous fellow writers and artists at a time of tragedy.” Self-censorship or forced censorship on college campuses is growing, with recent instances of progressive speech suppression … McEwan forcefully expounded that “all thought systems, all claims to truth — especially the grand claims to truth — must be open to criticism, satire, even, sometimes, mockery.”
McEwan reminded Dickinson’s students and faculty that “being offended is not to be confused with a state of grace — it’s the occasional price we all pay for living in an open society.” It is unfortunate that so many in our great universities think that price too steep.
‘It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?’ —Stephen Fry
So now these homegrown terrorists are using student loan money (tax dollars, of course) to fund their ISIS adventures…
(MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO)) – Two of the Twin Cities men accused of trying to join ISIS are now charged with student loan fraud.
Investigators say both Hamza Ahmed, 19, and Hanad Musse, 19, used more than $1,000 from federal student loan accounts for plane tickets to Turkey and Greece. Prosecutors say they were really going to Syria to join ISIS.
On Tuesday, prosecutors combined two separate cases, meaning that seven young Minnesota friends will eventually be tried together for allegedly trying to join the terror group.
Prosecutors combined the case of Ahmed, who was arrested and charged in February, with that of six young men who were arrested in April. Prosecutors say Ahmed’s arrest should have served as a warning to the others.
The initials of some of those who were arrested in April appear in the Ahmed complaint.
Also on Tuesday, Abdurahman Daud, one of the two members of the group who the government says went to California to pick up fake passports, made his first court appearance in Minnesota.