Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel)

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

She's lost the election?

HILLARY IS 44 argues Hillary Clinton has lost the 2016 general election -- should she get the nomination -- and that she did so Saturday night in Iowa at the debate:

Barack Obama wants to bring in ten thousand “refugees” which cannot be vetted because they either have no documents or they have forged documents. This is what Donald Trump has intelligently described as “one of the great Trojan horses.”
The moment Hillary Clinton lost the general election was when she said ten thousand was not enough. She wants 65,000 refugees and she compounds that foolishness with the lie that they can be vetted.

She does tend to create moments that haunt her.

This may end up being one.

It's rather amazing how gaffe prone she is.

She's like the female Joe Biden.

Only Biden's remarks were often endearing or just eye rolling.

Hillary's reveal some inability to connect with reality in a way that's potentially threatening.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

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:

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.”

Bernie Sanders Speaks to Thousands in Cleveland

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

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Empire

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's Got A Funny Bone"

Oh, Hillary, what a huge disappointment you've become.

So Wednesday, changing topics, on EMPIRE, we learned that Cookie is being played.

That was obvious before -- Adam Rodriguez only made it more clear this episode.

Does he even love Cookie at all?

Hakeem doesn't seem to think so.

But he's too focused on his Latina group -- the trio. His protege is being ass bumped into the background by another group member.

It's all so Destiny's Child.

Meanwhile Meme is telling Lucious that they need to get into streaming by buying an existing company.

She suggests new character Jago Locke's streaming service.

They go to a boxing club where he's sparring. He wants Lucious in the ring with him.

Lucious gets in intending to let it go easy but he insults Lucious and his talent.

And Lucious is already flashing back to his childhood and his crazy mother (Kelly Rowland really is moving in this part) who is searching for the bullets that he buried. She wants to shoot herself and maybe him.

Snapping, he knocks Jago out.

The streaming deal appears off as Jago ends up in the hospital.

But he's got a pain reliever drip (morphine?) and Meme uses the button to basically get him stoned as Lucious softens him up and the merger goes through.

(Or Jago's lawyer is drawing up the contract anyway.)

Jamal had mainly musical scenes although he had a nice scene with Cookie where they celebrated his success.

Crazy Andre just needs to be put away already.

He wants to be a good Christian so instead of sleeping with a woman to get her to do what he wants, he . . .

blackmails her.

Uh-huh.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Sunday, November 15, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Hillary spins on Iraq, one of her supporters spins and lies, the KRG's flag flies in Sinjar, and much more.

Iraq War veteran Matt McLaughlin reflected on the Iraq War and politician's responsibilities this week in a column for the Somerville Journal which included the following:

This moment was not very significant at first, but after two tours in Iraq and every year since, I asked myself “if that drill sergeant knew we would be there for years, why didn’t our elected officials? If he knew the truth, and 21-year-old Matt McLaughlin knew enough to ask questions, why didn’t the most informed people in the nation?”
The truth is they did know better. The politicians who voted yes to Iraq did so because it was politically expedient. Republicans and Democrats made a rare bipartisan decision to give Bush unlimited war powers. But they were not a united voice. One hundred and thirty-three members of Congress voted against the war. Their courage serves as a historical rebuttal to the idea that Iraq was a simple mistake based off bad information.
[. . . ]
I can forgive individuals for their trespasses, just as I hope I’m forgiven for my mistakes. But I will never willingly let such individuals make life and death decisions again. They already proved they would choose their political life over someone else’s death. I can forgive, but I will never forget. I will always remember. Army veteran Matthew McLaughlin served two tours in Iraq.

That's some honest truth.

So few people can offer it.

Take professional liar Jeffrey Marburg-Goodman.

At Huffington Post this week, he rushed in to defend Hillary on, of all topics, Iraq.

He 'forgot' to inform readers that he was part of her 2008 campaign.

The same way he forgot to tell readers he was tied to the corrupt no-bid contracts in Iraq that the US government 'rewarded' certain big donors with.

He especially forgets -- as does Huffington Post -- forget to tell you that this "Obama administration official" sered in the Bully Boy Bush administration as well. In 2004, for exaple, his title was Assistant General Counsel for Government Contracts at the US Agency for International Development.

For his embarrassing defense of the Bully Boy Bush administration's corrupt and no-bid contracts see the defense of it he offered in 2003 entitled [PDF format warning] "USAID'S Iraq Procurement Contracts:Insider's View" (and don't e-mail to tell me that the capital "S" after USAID should be lower case -- it's his typo).

But the liar's back to offer more lies when he should probably be issuing an apology for those no-bid contracts -- possibly issuing from a federal prison cell.

Is it any surprise a whore for Bush and Barack would show to whore for Hillary as well?

DC's little more than a gan of thieves these days.

It's a corrupt sewer waiting for someone to drain it.

Instead we get Marburg-Goodman serving up his version of fan fiction erotica, "Re-Examing Iraq: Is Hillary Really a Hawk?"

Let's look in on Marburg-Goodman's crap-trash:

Here are the facts: on October 11, 2002, Clinton joined a strong majority of Democrats, including liberal and left-center Democrats like John Kerry, Tom Harkin, and Joe Biden in voting "yes" on the Resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.
While that resolution did indeed authorize President Bush, under strict requirements of the 1973 War Powers Act, to use force, it remains largely forgotten that Clinton's vote authorized using such force only as "necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and to do so only upon the President certifying to Congress that "diplomatic or other peaceful means" would be insufficient to defang Saddam.

That's the sign of a really bad liar -- not even able to come up with a new lie.

Talk about lazy.

We've heard this lie before.

Elizabeth Edwards trotted this out to defend her husband John Edwards.

It was at the same time she was castigating Hillary in the press for being married to a . . . cheater.

Remember that?

Remember how Edwards not only had a mistress but he had a pregnant mistress who gave birth to his child.

But liar Elizabeth Edwards had the gall to attack Hillary for Bill's affairs?

So the liar today wants you to know Hillary voted "yes" for war -- but "yes" for another war, you understand.

Not the war that still ravages Iraq and has left over one million Iraqis dead, killed around 5,000 US military personnel, left wounded many more, not that war.

No, no, no.

Hillary voted for another Iraq war.

It reminds me of a scene in "The feminist film classic of the 90s," the Sandra Seacat directed comedy classic IN THE SPIRIT from a screenplay by Jeannie Berlin and Laurie Jones, starring Marlo Thomas and Elaine May. In the scene noted below, Reva (Marlo) and (Marianne (Elaine) pretend to be hookers to get prostitute and porn actress Lureen (Melanie Griffith) to open up to them about murder victim Crystal.

Lureen: I better quit drinking. I've got to go do The Robin Byrd Show in an hour.

Reva: Oh really? Are you an actress?

Marianne: Yeah.

Lureen: You know Karl Percy, don't you? From Albany?

Reva: Oh yeah.

Marianne: Yeah.

Reva: We, uh, we worked for him.

Lureen: You're kidding. Which movies?

Marianne: The early ones.

Reva: Yeah, the early ones.

Lureen: You mean like Finger Licking Good? 20 Laps?

Mariann: Yeah, that's right.

Lureen: Wow.

Reva: No, I-I wasn't in 20 Laps.

Lureen: Oh.

Reva: I had another part.

Lureen: Oh.

Reva: In a musical.

Lureen: You're kidding!

Marianne: She is.

Lureen: You know, Crystal was so good in Hot Sausages --

Reva: Uh-huh.

Lureen: -- but she just never followed through. She had no ambition.

Marianne: I think that she was very dumb to get mixed up with Chuckle.

Lureen: Yeah, well, Crystal was dumb. And Chuckles is smart. He is real smart. He is too smart. I get scared of guys who are that smart. You know, and he really gets off on showing you just how smart he is -- like a really mean cat with a bird.

FYI, Marlo's currently winning raves for another superb comedic performance in the play CLEVER LITTLE LIES now playing at New York's Westside Theatre (407 West 43rd Street).

But that's what the dreadful Huffington Post column, insisting Hillary voted for the Iraq War but, you understand, a different Iraq War reminds me of: Reva insisting she made porn but not 20 LAPS, instead she was in a musical.

Hillary voted for the war.

So did John Kerry.

So did many other cowards.

One thing to Hillary's credit, she hasn't attempted the lie that Jeffrey Marburg-Goodman does.

Marburg-Goodman also offers:

When Hillary Clinton was challenged on her Iraq war vote at last month's Democratic debate, the front-running candidate pointed to President Obama's 2008 selection of herself as Secretary of State as affirmation of his continuing confidence in her judgment on matters of war and peace.

Oh, Barack's Iraq judgment?

The same Barack who chose Joe Biden as his running mate?

Biden also supported the Iraq War.

The same Barack who chose John Kerry for Secretary of State?

John supported the Iraq War -- he was for it before he was against it -- remember that 2004 howler?

The same Barack who found Iraq War cheerleader Samantha Power several spots in his administration?

The same Barack who found Iraq War cheerleader Susan Rice a spot?

As we have long pointed out, Ann Wright -- who resigned from the State Dept over the Iraq War -- wasn't given a post in the administration.

But those who supported the war were littered throughout Barack's administration.

His choosing Hillary was perfectly in keeping with his choosing all those other Iraq War supporters -- including Victoria Nuland who, as we noted in 2004's "When NPR Fails You, Who You Gonna' Call? Not the Ombudsman," was Dick Cheney's right hand:

What is Kagan's conflict of interest appearance? (An issue NPR has still not addressed.) It's not that he writes an op-ed for The Washington Post. Dvorkin does toss out the "hawk" issue but without ever addressing it. But he also doesn't address a very important fact: who is Robert Kagan married to?

He's married to Victoria Nuland. For all I know, she's a wonderful person. But that's not the issue. The issue is who Ms. Nuland works for. Want to take a guess on that?

Did you guess Dick Cheney? If you did, you may be more informed than Dvorkin or Montagne because possibly they are unaware of that fact. Possibly, they haven't done the basic work required -- Montagne to know about the "guest" she is introducing; Dvorkin to address the issue of Kagan as a commentator/interpreter of John Kerry's remarks.

Michele Norris' husband worked for the Kerry campaign. (Warning: we're going down a very basic road here. But apparently, it's not one that NPR can navigate by themselves so let's move slowly to allow them to keep up.) Since Norris' husband is involved with attempting to get what we will call "team A" into the White House, Norris has the appearance of a conflict of interest and her reporting duties can not include commenting or covering the campaigns. That's a simple path to follow whether you agree with it or not.

But with Kagan, the path has a huge u-turn and veers off to God knows where. Kagan's wife works as Cheney's deputy national security adviser. That's Ms. Nuland' s title. So in effect, Ms. Nuland's employed by "team B" -- she's apparently not working on team B's campaign, but she works for team B. Potentially, Kagan has a vested interest in the outcome of the 2004 election.

It was so laughable to watch the stooges rush to Nuland's defense over Benghazi.

They didn't know a thing about Benghazi or, for that matter, Victoria herself.

Only when she was caught on tape regarding the Ukraine in 2014 did the toy left activists suddenly discover what a freak show Victoria was and then they learned of her connections to Cheney.

Ten years prior, we'd told you what NPR wouldn't or couldn't.

But the toy left, too scared to call out Barack or stand up, couldn't say a word until ten years later.

It's a little like when Davey D was on KPFA in the summer of 2008 whining about poor little Samantha Power -- or, as he stupidly and repeatedly called her, "Samantha Powers." She was a poor, innocent, peace loving person -- forced out of Barack's campaign by the evil Hillary.

No, she resigned because the BBC interview was about to start airing -- she resigned hours before it did and, check the archives, we called it out in real time unlike Tom Hayden who only wrote about it four months after the fact -- where she revealed that Barack's promise to end the Iraq War was not a promise he intended to be held to.

But there was Davey D rushing to defend a War Hawk -- one that we had identified as such -- as had Keith Harmon Snow, Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman and a few others.

But members of the toy left are never saddled with such add-ons as truth, they roll off the line with the factory standard spin, lie and whore options.

Those options were being test driven during Saturday's Democratic debate or 'debate' hosted by CBS News' John Dickerson.

JOHN DICKERSON:
All right, thank you, governor, thank all of you. The terror attacks last night underscored the biggest challenge facing the next President of the United States. At a time of crisis the country and the world look to the president for leadership and for answers. So Secretary Clinton, I'd like to start with you, hours before the attacks, President Obama said, "I don't think ISIS is gaining strength." 72% of Americans think the fight against ISIS is going badly. Won't the legacy of this administration which is-- which you were a part of-- won't that legacy be that it underestimated the threats from ISIS?

HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, John I think that-- we have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated. There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more-- open and cooperative way-- that we can bring people together.
But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the president has consistently said-- which I agree with-- is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS. That is why we have troops in Iraq that are helping to train and build back up the Iraqi military, why we have special operators in Syria working with the Kurds and Arabs so that we can be supportive. But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.

JOHN DICKERSON:
But-- Secretary Cli-- Clinton, the question's about what-- was ISIS underestimated. And I'll-- I'll just ask-- the president referred to ISIS as the JVU in a speech, the council in foreign relations in June of 2014 said, "I could not have predicted the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq." So you've got prescriptions for the future. But how-- how do we know if those prescriptions are any good if you missed it in the past?

HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, John, look, I think that what happened when we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush-- made with the Iraqis to leave-- by 2011 is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it.
And then with the revolution against Assad-- and I did early on say we needed to try to find a way to train and equip moderates very early so that we would have a better idea of how to deal with Assad because I thought there would be-- extremist groups filling the vacuum.
So, yes, this has developed. I think that there are many other reasons why it has in addition-- to what's happened in the region. But I don't think that the United States-- has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.

JOHN DICKERSON:
Okay, Governor O'Malley would you critique the administration's response to ISIS? If the United States doesn't lead (UNINTEL)?

MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, I would-- I would disagree with-- with Secretary Clinton, respectfully, on this score. This actually is America's fight. It cannot solely be America's fight. America is best when we work in collaboration with our allies. America is best when we are actually standing up to evil in this world.
And ISIS, make no mistake about it, is an evil in this world. ISIS has brought down a Russian airliner. ISIS is now attacked the western democracy in-- in France. And we do have a role in this. Not solely ours. But we must work collaboratively with other nations. The great failing of these last ten or 15 years, John, has been our failing of human intelligence on the ground. Our world in the world is not to roam the globe looking for new dictators to topple. Our role in the world is to make ourselves a beacon of hope, make ourselves stronger at home.
But also our role in the world, yes, is also to confront evil when it rises. We took out the save haven in Afghanistan but now there is undoubtedly a larger safe haven. And we must rise to this occasion in collaboration and with alliances to confront it. And invest in the future much better human intelligence so we know what the next steps are.

JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator Sanders, you said you wanna rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous date you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?

BERNIE SANDERS:
Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say you're gonna see countries all over the world-- this is what the C.I.A. says, they're gonna be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops. And you're gonna see all kinds of international conflict.
But of course international terrorism is a major issue that we've got to address today. And I agree with much of what-- the secretary and-- and the governor have said. Only have one area of-- of disagreement with the secretary. I think she said something like, "The bulk of the responsibility is not ours."
Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda-- and to-- ISIS. Now, in fact, what we have got to do-- and I think there is widespread agreement here-- 'cause the United States cannot do it alone. What we need to do is lead an international coalition which includes-- very significantly-- (UNINTEL) nations in that region are gonna have to fight and defend their way of life.

JOHN DICKERSON:
Quickly just-- let me ask you-- follow up on that, Senator Sanders, when you said the disastrous vote (?) on Iraq-- let's just be clear about what you're saying, you're saying Secretary Clinton-- who was then Senator Clinton-- voted for the Iraq war. And are you making a direct link between her vote for that or-- and what's happening now for ISIS? Just so everybody--

(OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:
Oh I don't think any-- I don't think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now.

(OVERTALK)

BERNIE SANDERS:
I think that was one of the worst foreign policy plunders in the modern history of United States.

JOHN DICKERSON:
All right, let's let Secretary Clinton respond to that.

HILLARY CLINTON:
Thank you, John, well, I think it's important we put this in historic context. United States has unfortunately been victimized by terrorism going back decades. In the 1980s it was in Beirut, Lebanon under President Reagan's administration and 258 Americans, marines, embassy personnel and others were-- murdered.
We also had attacks on two of our embassies in-- Tanzania and Kenya-- when my husband was president. Again, Americans murdered. And then of course 9/11 happened which happened before there was an invasion of Iraq. I have said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But I think if we're ever gonna really tackle the problems posed by jihadi extreme terrorism we need to understand it and realize that it had-- ans-- and (UNINTEL) to what happened in Iraq and we have to continue to be vigilant about it.

JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator Sanders, let me just follow this line of thinking. You've criticized then Senator Clinton's vote. Do you have anything to criticize in the way she performed as secretary of state?

BERNIE SANDERS:
I think we have a disagreement. And-- the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq, if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change-- whether it was in the early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile or whether it was overthrowing the government Guatemala way back when-- these invasions, these-- these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I'm a little bit more conservative than the secretary.

JOHN DICKERSON:
All right.

BERNIE SANDERS:
And that I am not a great fan of regime changes.

JOHN DICKERSON:
Here, let me go--

MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, may I-- may I interject here? Secretary Clinton also said that we left the h-- it was not just the invasion of Iraq which Secretary Clinton voted for and has since said was a big mistake, and indeed it was. But it was also the cascading effects that followed that.
It was also the disbanding of-- many elements of the Iraqi army that are now showing up as part of ISIS. It was-- country after country without making the investment in human intelligence to understand who the new leaders were and the new forces were that are coming up. We need to be much more far f-- thinking in this new 21st century era of-- of nation state failures and conflict. It's not just about getting rid of a single dictator. It is about understanding the secondary and third consequences that fall next.

JOHN DICKERSON:
All right, Secretary.

HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, and-- and of course each of these cases needs to be looked at individually and analyzed. Part of the problem that we have currently in the Middle East is that Assad has hung onto power-- with the very strong support of Russia and Iran and with the proxy of-- Hezbollah-- being there basically fighting his battles.
So I don't think you can paint with a broad brush. This is an incredibly complicated region of the world. It's become more complicated. And many of the fights that are going on are not ones that the United States has either started or have a role in. The Shia-- Sunni split, the dictatorships that have suppressed people's aspirations, the increasing globalization without any real safety valve for people to have a better life. We saw that in Egypt. We saw a dictator overthrown, we saw Muslim Brotherhood president installed and then we saw him ousted and the army back. So I think we've got to understand the complexity of the world that we are facing and no places more so than in the Middle East.

Now let's examine the above a little.

HILLARY CLINTON:Well, John, look, I think that what happened when we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush-- made with the Iraqis to leave-- by 2011 is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it.

Is that what "we" did?

Hillary's such a little whore these days.

What Barack did was try to renegotiate the Status Of Forces Agreement and failed. But the administration continued to try in November of 2011, December of 2011, January of 2011 and a little bit more. That's public record.

Excuse me.

That should be public record.

I was at the hearings.

We covered it here.

Where was the press?

Oh, that's right whoring as they always do.

No wonder they love Hillary -- she's a whore just like they are.

Let's zoom in on this: "by 2011 is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it."

Well, Hillary, you were in charge then, remember?

The State Dept took over the mission.

You had billions for training?

Remember?

And US facilities that you ended up giving away to the government of Iraq.

They didn't want training.

Remember that too?

It was in the report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Maybe you don't remember because you're not on the record.

Maybe America needs to be talking about that.

Maybe the whorish press needs to be talking about your refusal to tell Congress the State Dept's plan for Iraq?

Your refusal to answer questions?

At the end of 2011, the State Dept was put in charge of the US mission in Iraq.

It did not go well.

Hillary doesn't want to talk about that today.

Nor does she want to address the real issue of training.

Let's drop back to the February 8, 2012 snapshot: (and for any who don't remember, she was the Secretary of State at the time):

We covered the November 30th [2011] House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it." She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do things instead that are good for the United States." He made that remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.

Brooke Darby noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why are they talking to the Deputy Minister?

In that same House Foreign Relations Committee hearing, it was also established that the State Dept had no real plan.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?

Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?

[long pause]

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye." Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.

Again, a non-whorish press would be demanding answers from Hillary on Iraq.

And when she dared to bring up Nouri al-Maliki -- as she did in the debate -- a real press would challenge her with the fact that Nouri lost the 2011 elections to Iraqiya but the White House refused to back Ayad Allawi for prime minister and instead backed Nouri and negotiated The Erbil Agreement which went around the Iraqi voters and the Iraq Constitution to give Nouri a second term as prime minister.

But a whorish press just wants to lie for War Hawk Hillary.

Her representative -- Brooke Darby -- appearing before Congress was not willing to "put a time limit" on how long training would take.

Isn't it past time that Hillary herself was asked for a timeline?

It's been twelve years.

How much training do Iraqi forces need?

How many years?

When's the press going to ask Hillary that?

Let's note Hillary again for this:

HILLARY CLINTON:
Thank you, John, well, I think it's important we put this in historic context. United States has unfortunately been victimized by terrorism going back decades. In the 1980s it was in Beirut, Lebanon under President Reagan's administration and 258 Americans, marines, embassy personnel and others were-- murdered.
We also had attacks on two of our embassies in-- Tanzania and Kenya-- when my husband was president. Again, Americans murdered. And then of course 9/11 happened which happened before there was an invasion of Iraq. I have said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But I think if we're ever gonna really tackle the problems posed by jihadi extreme terrorism we need to understand it and realize that it had-- ans-- and (UNINTEL) to what happened in Iraq and we have to continue to be vigilant about it.

Terrorists attacks.

Anybody notice anything there?

She wants to talk Paris, she wants to talk 9/11, she wants to Tanzania and Kenya, even Beirut.

She doesn't bring up Benghazi, does she?

Of course, she doesn't.

And no one wants to bring up who the US supports in Iraq or their persecution of the Sunnis.

#IRAQ شمرية العراق ‏@moonnor27 Nov 13

Pics today from #Tuz #Iraq Shia militias crimes burned Kurds houses This militias backed by Iran &Iraqi government

84 retweets 26 likes

Hillary failed on Iraq all those years ago as a Senator, she failed as Secretary of State and she's still failing today.

Still on Hillary, Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Hillary's Got A Funny Bone" went up Saturday morning.

In Iraq, the battle for Sinjar is apparently over. Xinhua reports:

Iraqi Kurdish forces on Friday freed the town of Sinjar in the northern province of Nineveh from Islamic State (IS) militants, a Kurdish security source said.
The troops, known as Peshmerga, entered the town which located some 100 km west of the IS-held city of Mosul, from three directions and managed to seize all the neighborhoods of the town, the source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

As we noted Friday in "The no-win win:"

If Sinjar is liberated, it's very humiliating for Iraqi forces who can't take Ramadi.

In addition, Sinjar is disputed territory.

It was claimed by both the KRG and the Baghdad-based Iraqi government.

Who really has claim to it now?

If the Peshmerga liberated it, in the eyes of the world, the KRG now has dibs.

If the Baghdad-based government couldn't or wouldn't take on an effort to liberate the city what right do they have to it?

So this Tweet from Reuters' Isabel Coles is not at all surprising:

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Barack's real legacy

Barack, Barack.

It really is "Barack's Trail of Broken Promises" and for the latest one?

Bill Van Auken (WSWS) reports:

The White House indicated Tuesday that President Barack Obama will sign into law a Pentagon spending bill that significantly raises the base budget of the US war machine while prohibiting the shutdown of the prison camp at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba or the transfer of its detainees to US facilities.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provides for a base Pentagon budget (excluding expenditures on active military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria) of $548 billion, larger than any year since the end of the Cold War.
On top of the base budget, the funding bill includes $50.9 billion for “overseas contingency operations,” that will pay for ongoing military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, down from $64.2 billion in the last fiscal year. Together with a few smaller increments, this brings the total in military spending to $607 billion for the fiscal year that began October 1.
Over the past 15 years, the base Pentagon budget has risen by 42.7 percent, growing steadily as Obama replaced Bush, the Iraq war was wound down and then restarted, and the Afghanistan war was escalated and then scaled back.

Trail of broken promises, that's all he's going to leave behind.

Trail of broken promises will be his legacy.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Thursday, November 12, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, the UN Security Council hears about Iraq, John Kerry spins in public, the Peshmerga continue to try to take Sinjar, Nouri al-Maliki talks to the press, and much more.

Wednesday, the US Defense Dept offered:

Airstrikes in Iraq

Bomber, fighter, attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 airstrikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of the Iraqi government:

-- Near Kisik, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Mosul, a strike destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Ramadi, three strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed three ISIL vehicles, an ISIL excavator, two ISIL heavy machine guns, two ISIL buildings, and an ISIL 23mm anti-aircraft artillery piece.

-- Near Sinjar, six strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed eight ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL command and control nodes, three ISIL vehicles, and 18 ISIL staging areas.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike destroyed an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Huwayjah, four strikes struck an ISIL headquarters, an ISIL weapons cache, an ISIL logistical facility, and an ISIL security headquarters.

-- Near Albu Hayat, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL buildings, three ISIL weapons caches, and three ISIL fighting positions.

And the airstrikes were apparently so successful or so much fun that DoD announced today:

Strikes in Iraq

Bomber, fighter, attack and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 40 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Albu Hayat, one strike, struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL command-and-control node and two ISIL weapons caches.

-- Near Kisik, two strikes struck two separate ISIL staging areas.

-- Near Mosul, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and wounded an ISIL fighter.

-- Near Ramadi, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed five ISIL buildings, an ISIL tactical vehicle, an ISIL excavator, two other ISIL vehicles, two ISIL bomb clusters, and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Sinjar, 24 strikes struck nine separate ISIL tactical units, nine ISIL staging areas, and destroyed 27 fighting positions, an ISIL heavy machine gun, an ISIL bomb, six ISIL assembly areas, two ISIL vehicle-borne bombs, two ISIL command and control nodes, an ISIL bunker, two ISIL caches, four ISIL staging areas, and suppressed an ISIL heavy machine gun.

-- Near Tal Afar, six strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, three ISIL staging areas, an ISIL bridge, and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL observation post, and two ISIL bunkers.

And the airstrikes will continue tomorrow.

They've gone on daily since August . . .

of last year.

They've accomplished nothing of value and only a fool would think that they might.

At this late date, only a professional idiot would still hold out hope of something coming from these bombings.

Yesterday the United Nations Security Council heard about Iraq. The UN notes:

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi faces “immense challenges” to his efforts to bring reconciliation and broaden the political process in his strife-torn nation, confronting obstacles from all sides, the top United Nations official in the country warned the Security Council today.
“Since taking office (a year ago), the Prime Minister has been struggling to exercise his authority while his opponents grow bolder,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Special Representative Ján Kubiš told the Council, presenting the latest UN report on the country. “Meanwhile, the scope and impact of the reforms have not met public expectations.”
“Despite hopes that he would be able to move national reconciliation forward and bring the broader Sunni community into the political process, the Prime Minister's efforts have been obstructed by elements within all Iraqi components, the main reasons being lack of trust and vested interests.”

We'll note this from Jan Kubis' testimony:

Special Representative Jan Kubis: In July, when the country was experiencing record high temperatures and repeated electricity cuts, popular demonstrations erupted to protest the poor delivery of services in Baghdad and the southern governorates. By early August, the demonstrations had grown in strength and numbers. The protests have recurred each Friday and are led by civil society groups and young people, who are demanding better services, better governance and an end to government corruption and mismanagement. The protesters' demands for reform gained momentum when, on 7 August, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani urged Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to take decisive action against corruption, improve the Government’s performance, reduce public sector expenditure and publicly name officials who are impeding reforms. On 9 August, Prime Minister al-Abadi announced a reform plan to address the economic and social needs of Iraq, counter corruption and strengthen democratic institutions. The plan included downsizing the Government to reduce public expenditure and improve State performance, abolishing the posts of Vice-President and deputy prime ministers as well as a number of senior officials in various ministries, reducing their salaries, protecting services, and judicial reform. The reform plan was unanimously endorsed by the Council of Ministers just hours after the Prime Minister's announcement. On 11 August, the Council of Representatives unanimously approved Prime Minister al-Abadi's first package of reforms and its own reform package to complement the Prime Minister's measures. The Council of Representatives also stated that the reforms should be in conformity with the Constitution of Iraq and other laws. Following the endorsement by the Council of Representatives of the reform packages, Prime Minister al-Abadi began reducing the number of Government personnel. On 16 August, he ordered the immediate abolishment of his deputies' posts, the reduction of the Council of Ministers from 34 to 22 members and the dissolution of the Ministries of Human Rights, Women's Affairs, and Municipalities and Public Works. He also ordered the merging of Ministries with similar specialized functions: Science and Technology with Higher Education and Scientific Research; Environment with Health; Municipalities and Public Works with Housing; and Tourism and Antiquities with Culture. On 20 August, the Prime Minister announced a 90 percent reduction in the number of personnel dedicated to providing protection for Government officials. On 9 September, he announced the dismissal of 123 senior officials from their posts. They were to either retire or have their administrative status adjusted. The Prime Minister also took steps to formalize the abolition of the posts of the Vice- Presidents. On 20 August, he ceased the payment of their financial entitlements and on 15 September, the Council of Ministers submitted to the Council of Representatives a draft law to aboli sh their posts. All three Vice - Presidents publicly stated that they considered the abolition of their posts unconstitutional. 8 . The Government took steps t o initiate inquiries into allegations of political corruption. On 15 August, the Presidency of the Council of Representatives referred to outstanding cases of corruption against staff in the Ministries of Defence and Commerce concerning the award of arms contracts. The day before, the Chairman of the Integrity Commission, Hassan al-Yassiri, had announced that travel bans had been instituted against those under investigation for corruption.

So there's real movement on the political front? That's the story?

Nope.

Special Representative Jan Kubis: Most of the priority legislation that would aid national reconciliation, however, remained pending in Parliament. Votes on the national guard law were postponed on 30 August and again on 7 September owing to disagreements between parliamentary blocs over its provisions. Additionally, no progress was made towards the enactment of a general amnesty law since its first reading on 5 July. Meanwhile, the National Reconciliation Committee of the Council of Representatives separated the Justice and Accountability and Banning of the Baath Party Act into two bills on 25 July. While the Council of Representatives concluded, on 30 July, the first reading of the draft law on the banning of the Baath Party, dissolved entities and parties, and the activities of racism, terrorism and takfir (charge of unbelief), no voting took place on legislation that would revise de-baathification measures. On 15 September, the Council of Ministers decided to withdraw and review all draft laws submitted to the Council of Representatives by the previous Government. This amounted to some 80 draft bills, including the draft anti-terrorism law of 2005.

Before US President Barack Obama became enthralled with airstrikes, he was fond of pointing out that the only answer to Iraq's various crises was a "political solution." June 19, 2014, he was proud of declaring that publicly.

Yet when he began the current wave/latest wave of the Iraq War (August 2014, less than two months later), he was obsessed with bombings and completely forgot about the need for a political solution.

Bombing has passed for a 'plan.'

Who thinks Barack's 'plan' is working at this point?

Former prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki has waded into the discussion and called out the US. He says there's no way the Islamic State could survive these bombings and fears some nations (he means the US in that "some") want to see the Islamic State succeed.

Barack looks like an idiot because he's set himself up to be.

In June 2014, he was full of talk about how this would require a political solution -- Iraq's crises -- and how this or that (military actions) would not fix the problems.

And the bombings weren't intended to.

Until Barack lost any interest in a political solution.

That was somewhere around the time the US State Dept began acting as an auxiliary to the US Defense Dept and you had Brett McGurk acting like Military Wanna Be McJerk and focusing on everything but the political issues at stake in Iraq (which can mainly be boiled down to a lack of inclusion).

Barack's 'plan' is a failure and he's got no one to blame but himself.

He needs to realize that as Nouri continues to serve him up to the press.

RT notes:

Nouri al-Maliki, who stepped down as the head of the Iraqi government last year and remains a vice-president, believes that Iraq was targeted by a “regional conspiracy” and is at risk of breaking up. He also said inviting Russia to target Islamic State targets in Iraq could play a positive part in the debacle.
Describing the effort of the international coalition led by the US to cripple ISIS fighters in Iraq, Maliki said it was “inefficient”.
“It's unbelievable and unacceptable that more than 60 nations comprising this coalition that have the most modern aircraft and weapons at their disposal have been conducting their campaign in Iraq for 14 months and IS still remains in the country,” he told RT's Arabic-language sister-channel Rusiya Al-Yaum.

Today, US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke at the so-called US Institute of Peace.

There, he pretended to be concerned and fair. On Iraq, which he briefly noted, he zoomed in on the Islamic State and declared that their " fighters have been abducting, raping, and auctioning off women and girls, even teaching that the abuse of underage, non-Muslim girls is not only acceptable but a form of prayer, an expression of the will of God. That is how perverse this has become. And they have urged followers and affiliates from across the globe to murder their neighbors, to commit homicides and suicide at the same time."

At Wednesday's UN Security Council briefing on Iraq, Jan Kubis also noted the actions of the Islamic State.

Unlike John Kerry, Kubis didn't leave it at just the Islamic State.

Special Representative Jan Kubis: UNAMI also continued to receive reports alleging that pro-Government armed groups and militias had perpetrated human rights violations. Members of the Sunni Arab community were targeted in particular, primarily in Diyala. On 12 August, approximately 50 members of the Sunni Arab community were abducted in Baquba District, Diyala Governorate; at least 17 of the bodies were found in the Diyala River later the same day. Many of the abductions reportedly took place at or near checkpoints manned by Iraqi security forces and associated forces. On 1 September, militia members allegedly abducted at least 40 persons of Sunni Arab origin near Balad District, Salah al - Din. The fate and whereabouts of the abductees are unknown. Reports were also received of persons in Peshmerga uniform destroying homes and structures in Sunni Arab-inhabited areas in Jalawla, Diyala Governorate, on or around 16 August.

Poor John Kerry, such the hypocrite.

In other news, Charlie D'Agata (CBS Evening News -- link is text and video) reports:

Kurdish Peshmerga troops, backed by 36 American airstrikes, moved to take the town of Sinjar. They seized part of a highway used by ISIS to ferry supplies from Raqqa, its stronghold in Syria, to Mosul, an Iraqi city of more than 1 million people.
The battle to reclaim Sinjar began in the air. U.S. airstrikes pounded suspected ISIS targets throughout the day. Thick smoke hung over the city, and ISIS fighters lit banks of tires to try and block the bombers' visibility.

On this topic, David Sim (IBT) announces, "Kurdish fighters, backed by US-led air strikes, have captured several villages in an attempt to retake the Iraqi town of Sinjar from Islamic State (Isis) militants who overran it more than a year ago. Thousands of Yazidis living in Sinjar were killed and enslaved by IS, causing the flight of tens of thousands of people. This focused international attention on the Islamist group's violent campaign to impose its radical ideology, and prompted the US to launch air strikes against the militants."

Of course, the announcement's a little late in coming since they've been attempting to retake Sinjar since before August 2014 -- if anyone bothers to remember that.

Sri Lanka's The Nation newspaper explains, "The town sits on an important highway Islamic State uses to ferry supplies from Raqqa, Syria to Mosul in northern Iraq. Islamic State seized the city last summer in a major offensive, widening its self-described caliphate to about an hour’s drive from the Kurdish capital, Erbil." AFP adds, "Kurdish forces and the U.S. military said the number of Islamic State fighters in the town had increased to nearly 600 after reinforcements arrived in the run-up to the offensive, which has been expected for weeks but delayed by weather and friction between various Kurdish and Yazidi forces in Sinjar."

So 600. And they need to undertake (another) massive mission?

How many Peshmerga have been sent in to take on the 600?

Jim Michaels (USA Today) reports there are 7,500 Peshmerga that have been sent in.

So basically, they've sent in 15 times the number of Islamic State fighters.

BBC News is alone in reminding of just how long this 're-taking' has actually already taken: "The IS attack on Sinjar in August 2014 was one of the reasons the US began air strikes against IS positions in Iraq, amid a warning of genocide." Mike Giglio (BuzzFeed) reports:

To promote the offensive, Kurdish officials have put their press program on overdrive. They quietly arranged to have a flock of international journalists on hand for the offensive’s start, bringing them to Sinjar in convoys on Wednesday. Even a hashtag — #FreeSinjar — was a preplanned part of the operation. A KRG official pushed journalists to include it in their tweets; he requested to speak to at least one organization’s social media editor directly.
The public relations push may also be aimed in part at internecine politics. The PKK, the Turkish insurgent group classified as a terrorist group by the U.S. government, did much to stem the losses in Sinjar in August 2014 and halt the ISIS advance. PKK fighters have remained in the area, doing some of the most grueling house-to-house fighting to help clear ISIS from the town. But their presence has also rankled KRG leaders who suspect the group of wanting to carve out its own influence. The Sinjar offensive was reportedly delayed in part due to bickering between the peshmerga and PKK over who would be credited for the win.