Tuesday, March 24, 2015

The fake tears

This cannot be reposted often enough:



9h9 hours ago
Pretending to cry for American kids While bombing kids in Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia & Afghanistan
9h9 hours ago
Pretending to cry for American kids While bombing kids in Sudan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia & Afghanistan



Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


 
Monday, March 23, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the US 'protests' fizzle out, the Tehran-Baghdad assault on Tikrit still remains outside the city, bombs are dropped on the city, a prominent US official (CIA Director) joins the chorus warning about the rise of sectarianism in Iraq fueled by Tehran, and much more.




Oh, the worthless and the pathetic.  Let's start there.

The World Can't Wait, Cindy Sheehan and a lot of others thought they could hijack the anniversary of the Iraq War to pimp their pet causes.

No one turned out.

Most locations were lucky to mount a baker's dozen worth of 'protesters.'

Debra Sweet's embarrassing organization offered suggested Tweets ahead of the 'days' of protests.


The suicide rate among recent veterans is 50% higher than for civilians - these wars are wrong & we know it. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-veteran-suicide-20150115-story.html
US veteran suicides are as high as 8,000 per year, exceeding U.S. death rates on battlefield
http://www.veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html
http://iava.org/campaign/combatingsuicide/



I don't know how those are Tweets, but okay.


I'm sorry, they want you to be sympathetic to veterans?

They want to talk about pressure on veterans?

I'm sorry, Cindy Sheehan and Debra Sweet attacked and savaged Chris Kyle.

That's why I'm not promoting their crazy.

We did a parody of World Can't Wait at Third ("The World Can Wait (Parody)"") and that was February 8th.  I didn't want to do anything else to draw attention to these pathetic souls.

Chris Kyle was not a mercenary.

He did what he was trained to do and what he was ordered to do.

If you're unhappy with that, you take up with the government of the United States.

You don't trash him.

And if you do trash him, then stop pretending you give a damn about veterans because you clearly do not give a damn.

Imagine a US sniper who's returned to the US and feels that the US does not need to be in Iraq still.  He or she may look for people who feel similar.  But reading Cindy and Debra's attacks on Chris Kyle, would that veteran feels he or she would be welcomed by Cindy and Debra's groups?

Probably not.

The enemy is not veterans.

The enemy is a government that lies.

But all the weak protests offered was hatred.

It's really funny as they carved out this group and that group and ran their oppression Olympics -- to such a degree that even their hero Karl Marx wouldn't have been allowed at the protests were he alive today.

Whether you think Occupy was a movement or not, what it did -- at its best -- was attempt to united.  It was the 99% versus the 1%.

That was inclusive.

There was nothing inclusive about the protests this weekend.

Only San Francisco's protest really bothered to address Barack Obama.

Even more appalling was that the limited attention to Iraq did not include a cry to stop the War Crimes.

Are they even aware of that?



ABC News aired an important report March 11th and The a second one March 12th. March 12's report is transcribed below:



David Muir: Now to new fall out after our ABC investigation last night. It involves the fight against ISIS known for those awful videos, lining up their victims on the beach.  And now a new concern.  Are some of the Iraqi forces -- trained and paid for by US taxpayers -- using techniques that are just as brutal?  Well the State Dept tonight responding to our report and ABC's chief investigative reporter Brian Ross back on the job tonight.

Brian Ross:  The State Dept called these scenes today serious and disturbing.  Brutal images of what appear to be Iraqi forces and militias carrying out, celebrating, torture and beheadings.  In this torture scene, two US weapons against the wall. This video shows two civilians, pleading for their lives, about to be shot dead.  A man with an American supplied weapon walks by, a gunman with what appears to be the insignia of Iraqi Special Forces caught on tape.

US State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki: Their behavior must be above reproach or they risk being painted with the same brush as ISIL fighters.


Brian Ross:  The Pentagon says it has already cut off money to some Iraqi units because of gross human rights violations.  But Senator Patrick Leahy says the ABC News report shows the government should cut off money to more Iraqi units.

Senator Patrick Leahy: When you look at at the videos and look at the uniforms being worn, do we really want to say the US condones that?

Brian Ross: US officials tonight tell ABC News that America's top military leader Gen Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has repeatedly warned Iraqi leaders about the conduct of the Iraqi military and the militias that fight with them -- especially because the US is sending $1.5 billion to the Iraqi army and almost 3,000 American troops to help train them.


Statement by the Press Secretary on the Visit of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi of Iraq


President Obama will host Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi at the White House on Tuesday, April 14.  The Prime Minister’s visit underscores the strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq and the strong U.S. commitment to political and military cooperation with Iraq in the joint fight against ISIL.  The President and Prime Minister will discuss a range of issues, including continued U.S. support to Iraq to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, the Government of Iraq’s actions to address the needs of the Iraqi people and to strengthen cooperation between all communities in Iraq, and advancing a broad U.S.-Iraqi partnership through expanded political, commercial, and cultural relations under the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement.


What's the real point of the meet-up?

Maybe the stalled assault on Tikrit and what that might mean.

Al Jazeera thinks it means one thing, "If Iraqi forces are unable to push ISIL back and recover lost territory, US President Barack Obama would be faced with a choice of accepting failure in Iraq or committing US combat troops - something both US and Iraqi officials have spoken firmly against."


The assault on Tikrit has demonstrated a number of things including that the Iraqi military is still not ready.

It's also demonstrated that Iran can't handle a ground war.

That's not a typo: Iran.  (Not Iraq.)

How embarrassing for Iran.

They've sent all those forces in, they've taken over as 'leaders' of the assault and the assault ground to a stand still.

Press TV reports the assault is back on! And they note Iraqi planes bombed Tikrit.

Jonathan Beale and the BBC attempt to say that coalition planes are helping.  Attempt.

Beale's a damn liar and an embed who can't stop fawning and lying.

If coalition forces are bombing Tikrit -- as the text maintains but the video report doesn't bear out -- that's a story.  Instead of getting reported, the world is reminded yet again that the same BBC that whored out their good name to pimp the Iraq War is still doing so today.


Friday, Mitchell Prothero (McClatchy Newspapers) reported:


The much ballyhooed Iraqi government operation to capture the central city of Tikrit from the Islamic State has stalled three weeks after it began, amid widespread reports that Shiite Muslim militias and the government are badly divided over tactics and roiled by claims that the militias have engaged in war crimes against the local Sunni Muslim population.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/03/20/260513/operation-to-retake-tikrit-from.html#storylink=cpy


Sunday, AP noted, "Operations to recapture Tikrit have been on hold for nearly a week" while today Press TV says they're back on.

 The Tehran - Baghdad alliance has been most noted for its repeated failures and, again, for telegraphing to the world that the Iranian forces can no longer hold their own in a ground war.

Iraq and Iran were an issue that US State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf attempted to dance around in today's press briefing:



QUESTION: On Iraq and Iran’s role – I mean, for observers, we’re seeing the country really from inside and outside Iraq, Iran seems to have taken over the leadership of the war against ISIS from the United States. When you see --


MS. HARF: I think that the Iraqi Security Forces would strongly disagree with that --


QUESTION: Can I --


MS. HARF: -- as would the Kurdish forces.


QUESTION: The United States has led a coalition against the Islamic State.


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: But over the past – say since the war against – in Tikrit started, the – to recapture Tikrit, the United States has been bombing ISIS only in the areas where the Kurds advance, not in Tikrit. No airstrike in Tikrit, where the Iraqis are focused.


MS. HARF: Well, we – the coalition has continued to provide air support in the fight against ISIL with multiple airstrikes on ISIL targets in various locations, with the last strikes occurring over this weekend.


QUESTION: But all of them have been in --


MS. HARF: Let me finish.


QUESTION: -- the Kurdish area.


MS. HARF: Let me finish with the – and I said in various areas, various locations. And this fight against ISIL is much bigger than Tikrit. That’s one – certainly one part of it. That battle is ongoing. But the fight against ISIL on the military side is much bigger than Tikrit. The United States is leading that with our Arab partners, with our Iraqi partners, our Kurdish partners, but then there’s all the other four lines of effort beyond that that we are leading a coalition around the world.


QUESTION: But isn’t it really fair to say that the Iranians are helping the Iraqi Shia government and the militia – Shia militias who are helping the Iraqi Government to recapture the area? The United States is helping only the Kurdish government at the moment.


MS. HARF: That is patently false.


QUESTION: At the moment.


MS. HARF: That is patently false.


QUESTION: That’s practically true, though.


MS. HARF: No, it is patently false, actually. What you said is not true.


QUESTION: At the moment.


MS. HARF: At the moment, what you said is not true. I will keep saying that until I make my point 
clear --


QUESTION: Well, what --


MS. HARF: -- that the – wait, let me finish – that the United States is supporting the Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish forces throughout Iraq in a variety of ways to help them push back on ISIL. We are training Iraqi forces; we are helping them get them more equipment; we are supporting them on a day-to-day basis, day in and day out; we’re helping the coalition take strikes. This is something we’re very committed to.
So yes, Tikrit is a small part of it. But clearly, the United States military is very focused on this and is playing a leading role in helping push back on ISIL.


QUESTION: Just one more question. An Iraqi lawmaker, prominent one, said that there are as many as 30,000 Iranians on the ground in Iraq. Does that concern you?



MS. HARF: I can’t confirm that that number is accurate.



Marie's attempts at spinning today follows yesterday's confession that the US government is worried about Iran's involvement in Iraq.

As we noted last nightCIA Director John Brennan appeared on Fox News Sunday (link is video and text), "During the wide-ranging interview, Brennan said that Iran and the Islamic State are equal in the threat they pose to the United States."  AP notes this morning, "The comments by CIA Director John Brennan on Fox News Sunday are among the strongest yet voiced by American officials about the involvement of shadowy Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in the war against the extremist group."

Brennan may have made the strongest comments from any US official but his comments followed those of others in Iraq and out of Iraq in recent days.

At SUSRIS, Riad Kahwaji offers an analysis which includes:


Despite extensive efforts by the Obama administration to assure its Arab allies that their long-term strategic partnership will remain strong and will not be affected by the signing of a nuclear deal with Iran, a very skeptical mood prevails in the traditionally pro-Western Arab capitals. “The U.S. has sold us to Iran and it is now executing an agenda aimed at helping Tehran assert its influence in the region,” said one Arab official. The official reiterated views expressed by many of his counterparts in the region. “Look how Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are spearheading the Iraqi army attack against Tikrit under the eyes of the Americans who have troops deployed in the country and are providing air cover to forces advancing against Daesh,” he added. Daesh is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that controls large swathes of Iraq and Syria and is today under attack by an International and Arab Alliance providing air power to the Iraqi forces.
Fears expressed earlier by the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, that the Iranian involvement in the fighting in Iraq could turn the war on terrorism into a sectarian war is proving truer by the day. Media reports out of Tikrit are talking about dozens of billboards and banners of Iranian leaders like Ayatullah Khoumaini and Ali Khaminei were put up at all the main gates of Tikrit, a Sunni stronghold. The IRGC has reportedly even deployed Iranian-made multiple rocket launchers around the city. An Iraqi Shiite Memeber of Parliament Ahmed Al Assadi told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat on March 18 that Iran was providing the Iraqi Shiite militias with all the weapons they need, which is a clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions that bar Iran from exporting arms. There are growing fears of atrocities and massacres that could be committed by the Shiite mil itias operating under the IRGC against the Sunni residents of Tikrit. The Iraqi House Speaker and other members of Parliament have repeatedly called over the past few weeks for independent investigations into reported massacres and sectarian cleansing committed by the Shiite militias known as the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Sunni towns and villages that were occupied by ISIS. Failure of the international community to investigate these reported acts of genocide and the continued role of the PMU alongside the IRGC are making the United States look complicit with Iran in a war against the Arabs in a conflict that is quickly turning into a large-scale sectarian war.



As criticism of Tehran's involvement has grown so strong -- especially as the reports of human rights abuses (War Crimes) taking place have grown -- Iraq's Council of Ministers has issued a statement denying any Iranians are in Iraq.  Rudaw reports, "Iraq’s Council of Ministers on Monday denied there were any foreign combat forces in the country, reacting to reports that Iranian forces have been fighting alongside the Iraqi Army in the war with ISIS."


The denial was in response to statements made on Sunday by a Kurdish MP.  Rudaw reports:

At least 30,000 Iranian soldiers and military experts are in Iraq and involved in the fight against ISIS,  a Kurdish lawmaker in the Iraqi parliament said Sunday, calling it a “threat to Iraq’s sovereignty.”
“At least 30,000 soldiers and military experts from the Islamic Republic of Iran are fighting ISIS militants in Iraq,” Shakhawan Abdullah, head of the parliamentary security and defense committee, told Rudaw.



Their denial indicates that either the Council of Ministers is composed of a pack of liars or else they're not in touch with their colleague who serves as the Minister of Transportation.

AFP spoke with that minister yesterday, Hadi al-Ameri, who is currently serving in the (illegal) capacity of "commander of the Badr militia" and al-Ameri couldn't stop singing the praises of Iranian Qassem Soleimani (identified by the US government as a terrorist) who is there, in Iraq, "whenever we need him," according to al-Ameri.  AFP notes:

Soleimani has advised Iraqi forces in multiple operations against ISIS, which led a major offensive last June that overran large areas north and west of Baghdad.
In doing so, he and other Iranian advisers provide the kind of forward support during operations that U.S. President Barack Obama has yet to authorize American forces to undertake.

And others are disturbed by Iran's involvement as well.  Sherine Tadros (Sky News) reports:

Iraq's vice president Iyad Allawi has told Sky News that Iran's involvement in his country is unacceptable and is failing to push Islamic State fighters back.
Speaking from his office in Baghdad, Mr Allawi said he was very concerned about Iran's increasing influence on the militias fighting the war against IS in Iraq.

He said: "I think the role of any regional power or any power in Iraq's affairs is unacceptable."



Saturday, the editorial board of the Washington Post observed:


The Obama administration, focused on completing a nuclear deal with Iran and eager to minimize direct U.S. involvement in the latest Iraq war, has played down the militia menace. While not supporting the attack on Tikrit with airstrikes, senior officials have characterized it as a positive development. Such statements suppose that a force including commanders and units on the State Department’s global terrorism list and steered by an Iranian general who previously directed attacks on U.S. troops will somehow advance the aim of reconstructing a multiethnic Iraq.
In fact, a new report from Human Rights Watch documents how Shiite militias have pursued a brutal scorched-earth policy in areas already liberated from the Islamic State. After U.S. airstrikes drove Islamic State forces out of the town of Amerli, in northeastern Iraq, late last summer, the militias went on a sectarian rampage, burning and bulldozing thousands of homes and other buildings in dozens of Sunni villages. The intent was to violently alter the demography of once ethnically diverse areas so that Shiites could dominate them.





Today, the Defense Dept announced:

Airstrikes in Iraq
Fighter aircraft conducted six airstrikes in Iraq, approved by the Iraqi Ministry of Defense:
-- Near Mosul, an airstrike destroyed two ISIL fighting positions.
-- Near Ramadi, an airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.
-- Near Rawah, an airstrike struck an ISIL trailer.
-- Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL staging area and an ISIL tactical unit.
 -- Near Tal Afar, an airstrike destroyed an ISIL excavator.




There is no mention of Tikrit on that list.

BBC needs to back up their reporting or retract it.









Monday, March 23, 2015

Media Matters is a liar

I'm so sick of David Brock and his whoring.  I wonder what it would take to get the right to take him back because he has destroyed the left.

At his sewer Media Matters, they're in a tizzy -- a factless one.


Dick Cheney is wrong to blame all the problems on Barack.

Media Matters is wrong to blame them all on Bully Boy Bush and Cheney.

In terms of the drawdown of troops (not withdrawal), Media Matters cites Time magazine to insist that this was Bully Boy Bush's plan.

It was Barack's plan to keep them and in a November hearing after the Time article, Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey told Congress that they were still working on the agreement.

The agreement -- to keep thousands of troops in Iraq -- faltered because the Iraqi government did not feel the US was offering a high enough number that would be worth their dealing with political fallout from the Iraqi people.

That's reality.

The Media Matters wants to insist that they had a robust diplomatic presence in Iraq after the draw down and that the State Dept was doing training.

How stupid are they at Media Matters?

Yeah, Dick Cheney's a liar.

So is Media Matters.

The two whores should get in bed and make a baby.

If it's butt ugly they can call it David Brock.


Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Saturday, March 21, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, a court rules the US government must release Abu Ghraib images, Barack continues to refuse working towards a political solution in Iraq, and more.


June 20, 2003, Amnesty International announced, "The notorious Abu Ghraib Prison, centere of torture and mass executions under Saddam Hussein, is yet again a prison cut off from the outside world."  To what degree may still be unknown because, despite documented proof of the abuses, the US government -- under Bully Boy Bush and under President Barack Obama -- has refused to release the evidence which might illuminate.

That may be changing,  Mark Hensch (The Hill) notes, "The Associated Press reported Saturday that U.S. district judge Alvin Hellerstein made the ruling in New York after more than a decade of litigation. The Defense Department has two months to appeal the decision before potentially making any images public."  RT reminds:

The photographs first received attention in late 2003 by Amnesty International, which provided shocking proof that members of the US Army and the Central Intelligence Agency carried out so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The photographs pointed to gross physical and sexual abuse, including torture, rape and murder. The report opened up a debate in the United States as to the definition of torture and if it is applicable in a time of war

In 2004, Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker) reported:

A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:


Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”




Today, Telesur quotes the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer stating, "The Obama administration’s rationale for suppressing the photos is both illegitimate and dangerous … To allow the government to suppress any image that might provoke someone, somewhere, to violence would be to give the government sweeping power to suppress evidence of its own agents' misconduct."


Lynndie England became the poster girl of the crimes.  Despite being convicted in court, the woman -- who is not very bright to begin with, granted -- still thinks she can minimize the torture.  She's not faced the crimes she committed and there are a number of Americans who share her denial.

Photographic proof won't end the lying but it will make it more clear to those in the world with sanity just how desperately deluded those who lie and minimize the crime are.

There are some who oppose the release and may do so for genuine concerns.  But those in the military brass who've fought the release?  They should be ashamed of themselves.  There is nothing in the military code which allows them to cover up or lie.  They apparently either forgot or decided to forsake their officer training.

The honorable thing to do was always to own up to what took place.

Refusing to do so has been ridiculous.

And apparently, there's this thing called 'instant redemption.'

David Petraeus apparently enrolled in that program.  Sharing classified information with his mistress while he led the CIA forced him out of that post and resulted in criminal charges but, in the blink of an eye, he's back as a national security advisor to Barack.

In the blink of an eye from turning over classified information to your sex partner -- not to be a whistle blower and inform the people, but so she'll write a book praising you (apparently Petreaus is so bad in the sack he has to bribe even his mistress) -- to national security advisor.

Barack redeemed him.

So it's only fitting that Barack be the first person bit in the ass by Petraeus.

Liz Sly (Washington Post) interviewed Petreaues in writing and this is what he wrote in response to one of her questions:



Yet despite that history and the legacy it has left, I think Iraq and the coalition forces are making considerable progress against the Islamic State. In fact, I would argue that the foremost threat to Iraq’s long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State; rather, it is Shiite militias, many backed by — and some guided by — Iran.

These militia returned to the streets of Iraq in response to a fatwa by Shia leader Grand Ayatollah Sistani at a moment of extreme danger.  And they prevented the Islamic State from continuing its offensive into Baghdad. Nonetheless, they have, in some cases, cleared not only Sunni extremists but also Sunni civilians and committed atrocities against them.  Thus, they have, to a degree, been both part of Iraq's salvation but also the most serious threat to the all-important effort of once again getting the Sunni Arab population in Iraq to feel that it has a stake in the success of Iraq rather than a stake in its failure.  Longer term, Iranian-backed Shia militia could emerge as the preeminent power in the country, one that is outside the control of the government and instead answerable to Tehran.



I happen to agree with Petraeus' assessment.

But let's all realize that the remarks are a slap to Barack's efforts.

Barack's stupidly agreed as usual to bend over and take anything.  He's not a smart man.

He got it right in June when he said only a political solution could solve Iraq's crises.

But he made that statement and then avoided everything but a political solution.

That's where the focus should have been, on the politics.

The US should have acted -- or tried -- as mediators between the factions.

They did so before under Barack, remember?

Barack didn't like the 2010 election results so he overturned them with The Erbil Agreement -- a US brokered contract that gave Nouri al-Maliki a second term as prime minister (after his State of Law had lost to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya).

Now granted, it's probably hard to come back from that.

Because Nouri used the contract to get his second term but then refused to honor the promises he made in the contract -- the promises he made in exchange for a second term.

And when Nouri refused to honor those promises, the White House played dumb.

The same White House that swore the contract had their full backing.

The same Barack Obama who told that over the phone to Ayad Allawi to get him to end Iraqiya's walk out of Parliament.


Did we forget that?

The Erbil Agreement's signed and, finally, after 8 months of a political stalemate, the Parliament is finally allowed to meet.  From the November 11, 2010 snapshot:



Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports one hiccup in the process today involved Ayad Allawi who US President Barack Obama phoned asking/pleading that he accept the deal because "his rejection of post would be a vote of no confidence". Ben Lando, Sam Dagher and Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) confirm the phone call via two sources and state Allawi will take the post -- newly created -- of chair of the National Council On Higher Policy: "Mr. Obama, in his phone call to Mr. Allawi on Thursday, promised to throw U.S. weight behind the process and guarantee that the council would retain meaningful and legal power, according to the two officials with knowledge of the phone call."


I falsely state over and over that Barack never mentioned it again, The Erbil Agreement.

That's incorrect.

He did it mention it November 12, 2010 and then he ignored it.

Before I discuss the G20, I want to briefly comment on the agreement in Iraq that's taken place on the framework for a new government.  There's still challenges to overcome, but all indications are that the government will be representative, inclusive, and reflect the will of the Iraqi people who cast their ballots in the last election. This agreement marks another milestone in the history of modern Iraq.  Once again, Iraqis are showing their determination to unify Iraq and build its future and that those impulses are far stronger than those who want Iraq to descend into sectarian war and terror. For the last several months, the United States has worked closely with our Iraqi partners to promote a broad-based government -- one whose leaders share a commitment to serving all Iraqis as equal citizens.

The Erbil Agreement.

That he walked away from.

Do we all get how awful that was?

It was awful to overturn the Iraqi's people's vote.

But to do so with a contract and swear you're going to support this contract but then not do it?

Pushing Baghdad into Iran's lap has a lot to do with Barack's empty promises.

If you broker a contract and you say you will stand by it and then don't, why should anyone ever trust you again?

Much was made of Barack declaring a line in the sand on Syria and then wiping it away with his foot.  While that was damaging, so was breaking the promise on backing The Erbil Agreement.

To be very clear, Barack should have never labeled a red line (Syria) and he should never of overturned the will of the people (Iraq).  Those were huge mistakes.

But they go to Barack forever making statements he can't or won't back up.

And with that reputation, maybe it's impossible to work towards a political solution in Iraq.


But the White House doesn't even try.

They do bombings from the air.

They think that's an answer.

And with the focus solely on assault and kill, Baghdad moves even closer to Tehran.

Petraeus is correct, the Islamic State is not the biggest threat.  

His remarks go to Barack's failure in Iraq from this summer to right now.


At CNN, Rula Jebreal offers an analysis which includes:

The reality is that short-term tactical victories won't be enough to defeat ISIS, especially as the reliance on Iran-backed Shiite militias is only likely to exacerbate tensions with the largely local Sunni population. Indeed, the crucial ground war component of the campaign has so far been heavily reliant on the Shiite militias, whose track record of sectarian violence is well-documented, and their involvement threatens to drive more Iraqi Sunnis into the arms of ISIS.  
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said the involvement of these groups "will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism." But based on past experience, many locals are understandably more frightened by their designated "liberators" than they are of the vicious extremists of ISIS who have ruled their towns over the past eight months.



There are no plans beyond drop bombs, kill people.

Barack has nothing.

We're three months away from the one-year mark on his Iraq requires a political solution remarks and he has failed to focus on those efforts.

Those efforts include encouragement and discouragement.

The diplomatic tool box is not filled with roses.

There are rewards, yes.

There is also the ability to take away.


Haider al-Abadi has offered nothing but empty words since becoming prime minister in August.

The diplomatic tool box does allow the US government to say, "You get X done by Y or we pull the funding for _____."

Or, "You get your forces to stop slaughtering Sunni civilians or we cut off the weapons supply to your country."

Barack didn't have anything under his belt when he became president.

From 2005 to the end of 2006, he served in the Senate.

Starting in 2007, he was all over the country campaigning for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination and then campaigning to be the president.


He knows nothing and that becomes more and more clear with each year of his presidency as he stumbles from crisis to crisis, never solving anything.


A further confirmation of Barack's failure came Monday when Barbara Plett Usher (BBC News -- link is video) interviewed Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal today:



Prince Turki al-Faisal:  Iran is already a disruptive player in various scenes in the Arab world -- whether in Yemen, in Syria and Iraq, in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Bahrain.  And so ending the fear of Iran developing weapons of mass destruction is not going to be the end of the troubles that we're having with Iran.

Barbara Plett Usher:  Speaking of those troubles, the Americans seem to be accepting Iranian backing for the Iraqi ground forces fighting ISIS.  Is there an alternative?

Prince Turki al-Faisal:  There is.  The Iraqi people. There is a record of that, of course, when al Qaeda was the main enemy during the occupation of Iraq.  It was the Arab tribes -- Sunni tribes --  that managed to get rid of al Qaeda so that's where it should be going.

Barbara Plett Usher:  But do you think more should be done to get Iran out of the picture in terms of the fight against ISIS.

Prince Turki al-Faisal: Now it seems that Iran is expanding its occupation of Iraq. And that is unacceptable.



From 2010 to 2014, Nouri al-Maliki attacked the neighbors in the region.


He accused all -- except Iran -- of being out to get Iraq.

Nouri was paranoid -- that was known by the US government before they installed him as prime minister in 2006, that's why the Bully Boy Bush White House installed him.

But Nouri's paranoia caused a lot of damage.

Haider's not repaired anything.

His recruitment of Tehran to help fight in Iraq has actually harmed Iraq's relations with Arab states.


King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed public concerns.


Haider's good about hitting up the region for help but what has he done to improve relations?

Nothing.

And he's from Nouri's Dawa party and he's very close to Nouri.

All of which means doubt in the region when it comes to trusting Haider.

That's one of those things that the US could have provided diplomatic help on.

But again, Barack spent all the time on bombing and on using the State Dept to go around begging countries to send forces to Iraq.

No time for the political solution, not for Barack.

Earlier this week, Mosul had leaflets dropped on it from planes announcing that an assault would be forthcoming.  Deborah Amos (NPR) reports:


The Iraqi army is far from ready for an assault on Iraqi's second largest city. The first assault on ISIS in Tikrit has stalled for more than a week. The forces leading that military campaign are primarily Iraq's Shiite militias, backed and trained by Iran.
And if they succeed?
"You bring in the military force, and you fight the terrorist there, you evict them. And then what?" asks Qubad Talabani, vice president of the Kurdish regional government.
In other words, Iraq's militia may be able to take Tikrit, but it's unclear they will be able to hold it.
Mosul will be even a more difficult and sensitive operation, Talabani says. The city is five times larger than Tikrit, with more than 1 million civilians, mostly Sunni Arabs, who welcomed ISIS when they first arrived, relieved to be rid of an oppressive Shiite-dominated government and army. Now, the Sunnis of Mosul are watching Shiite forces battling ISIS in Tikrit.
"That's the problem with the Tikrit operation, that it is a purely Shiite-led military operation against a heavily Sunni place of the country," Talabani says. "This is Saddam's birthplace here, with no political endgame anywhere in sight. Not for the people of Tikrit, not for the Sunnis of Iraq."




Deborah Amos  is the author of  Eclipse of the Sunnis: Power, Exile, and Upheaval in the Middle East.


Meanwhile Al-Arabiya (via NCRI) reports:

Mr. Masrour Barzani, National Security Advisor for Iraqi Kurdistan Region, warned on the role of Shiite militias supported by Iran in the battle against the Islamic State, known as ISIS, to retake Tikrit.
In an interview with BBC’s HARDTalk program he noted that using the assistance of the militias by Government of Iraq can lead to a problem greater than ISIS since their presence will up the sectarian tensions between the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq.


As the NSA for the KRG, Barzani's remarks matter.  They matter also because of who his father: KRG President Massoud Barzani.


If you've noticed, the White House has had a flurry of remarks about the Iran 'treaty' that may or may not come to be -- a flurry in the last 72 hours.  It's because Democratic leadership in Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, made it clear to Barack that this never-ending negotiation needs to wrap up one way or the other.

Barack's stupid.

There's no way to pretty that up.

But so is the administration.

They made too much of a deal too early.

Worse than that, they brought Barack in too soon.

You bring in the president at the end of negotiations, just in time for the victory lap.

Bring him (or her) in sooner risks the loss of prestige should a deal fail.

I thought the White House learned that back when they failed to get the Olympics in Chicago.

Remember that?

They sent the President of the United States to lobby for that (along with Oprah).

And they failed.

That's how cheapen the office.

That's how you tarnish it.  (You also do that by making the late night talk show rounds like you're the braless starlet determined to kick-start her career someway somehwo.)

I get that Barack is probably going to lose face on this deal.

Well he needs to suck it up and wrap it up.

If there's a deal, stop being held hostage by Tehran, make the deal.

Congress is tired of it, the American people are growing tired of it.

And Iraq is suffering because of it.


Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports at least 47 people died of violence on Friday in Iraq and:


According to unofficial reports, the battle for Tikrit has already cost 1,000 militiamen their lives. The number remains unconfirmed by the government, which has been very tight with any casualty figures. The large number of dead may explain why forces paused their advance last weekend. The pause was to have lasted only two days while reinforcements arrived, but it was extended and continues into this weekend. Even during the pause an anonymous source at a Samarra hospital says the 100 security members are brought in each day, either wounded or dead, from the battlefield. 


Sunday, 60 Minutes (CBS) reports on Iraq:







The leader of one of Christianity's oldest communities reluctantly says that waging war against ISIS - killing their fighters - is the only way to stop the radical Islamists from destroying Christianity in Iraq. Archbishop Bashar Warda of Erbil speaks to Lara Logan for her report on the plight of thousands of Christians forced to flee ancestral homes from ISIS. Her story will be broadcast on 60 Minutes Sunday, March 22 AT 7 p.m. ET/PT.







iraq

the washington post
liz sly

60 minutes
cbs news

Friday, March 20, 2015

A liar named Elizabeth Schulte

The US Socialist Worker has been a disgrace since 2008.

It's hard to think they can outdoing themselves at this point, they've whored for Barack so much.


But along comes Elizabeth Liar Mouth Schulte.

This is why my grandafther, a lifelong Socialist, can't stand these whores.

She's going after Hillary.

That's fine.

But hold her accountable for her actions.

Lying whores always over reach.

Which is how Schulte comes to write:

WHEN CLINTON wasn't raining bombs on Afghanistan or backing despots in North Africa or enabling coup-makers in Central America, she was using her position as secretary of state to score lucrative contracts for U.S. military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Electric.

That would be Barack who rained bombs on Afghanistan.

Does the whore not know that Barack is president?

Oh, the whore knows.

But that's why no one takes US Socialist Worker seriously.

It's a bunch of lying, cowardly whores who made it their life's purpose to cover up  for Barack.



Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 
Thursday, March 19, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, stupidity helped create the illegal war, stupidity also helped continue it, we look at Patrick Cockburn and other stupid people, we explore the concept of 'original sin' with regards to Iraq, and much more.



March 19, 2003, the Iraq War began as this ABC News report noted:


World News Videos | US News Videos

Chris Bury: At 9:33 [p.m.] Eastern Time, just about an hour and a half after the president's deadline, the first reports came in of explosions in Baghdad.  US Central Command here in Doha [Qatar] confirmed an operation was underway aimed at specific targets of Saddam Hussein's regime.  The early stages of war had begun.  Just over 48 hours ago, President Bush issued that ultimatum to Saddam Hussein: Step down or face the consequences. That deadline came and went tonight.  And less than two hours after that 8:00 pm deadline passed, the White House press corps was told that the president would be making a statement to the nation.  A statement that everyone knew eventually was coming. 


The Iraq War is criminal, to be sure.

Starting it was also stupid.

This snapshot, we salute the stupid.


Today is a solemn day for us. Twelve years ago the Bush administration launched the illegal invasion of Iraq, forever altering millions of lives.
As an organization made up of veterans who have seen firsthand the impacts of war and who have also been deeply implicated in it, we know that this day must be seared into our collective conscience. Forgetting can not be an option.

Was it a fateful day?

Seems there were a lot of fateful days.

Seems like IVAW stopped being against the war when Barack got into office.

My personal favorite moment with IVAW is laughing at them in Denver in the summer of 2008.

Ava and I were there for the DNC Convention.  IVAW was there to whore.

Oh, they pretended otherwise.

They had a tantrum they tried to pass off as a protest.

And Barack's campaign was genuinely worried.

And the press was interested.

But Barack sent out a flunky to talk to them and they fell for it.

They stopped their tantrum and got Punk'd.

They've been useless pretty much ever since.

They've been silent as Barack's sent more troops into Iraq in the last months.

They were silent about Nouri al-Maliki and his reign of terror.

They're useless.

Once upon a time, they pushed their way to the front of the peace movement.  They knew, they insisted, because they were there.

Apparently, they left their spines there.

Because they couldn't call out Barack.

Not when he went after Libya, not with his Drone War and not even with regards to Iraq.

Iraq Veterans Against the War?

The reality was many weren't Iraq veterans.

Turns out the larger reality is that many weren't even against war.  They were just against Bully Boy Bush.

Their statement comes close to 'original sin' -- arguing that today is a reflection of March 19, 2003.  US President Barack Obama tried to pass the Islamic State off as that this week.

In fairness, it was a rejection of the ridiculous origin tale John Kerry offered to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 11th.

Pravda covered Barack's statements:

US President Barack Obama, talking to Vice News, spoke about his vision of the US role in the formation of the Islamic State terrorist group. Obama said bluntly that the United States was involved in the creation of the group.
"ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al-Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is An example of unintended consequences, which is why we should generally aim before we shoot," Obama said.

The US president said later that the US actions in Iraq after the 9/11 attacks were unintentional and added that he did not expect they would cause such aggression on the part of local militants that it would lead to the creation of new armed groups, Pravda.Ru reports. 


Should we generally aim before we shoot?

Possibly.

Possibly, we might also try respecting election results.

Today, there is massive whining -- Andrea Mitchell's one of the worst -- about the election of the leader . . . of Israel.

I don't understand where you get off, as a non-Israeli, being so outraged by the results.

What gives you the right to stick your damn nose everywhere?

Do you ever think maybe you should close your mouth?

This attitude is the same attitude Barack had in 2010.

The Islamic State came to prominence because of Barack.

He refused to honor the election results which saw Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya beat Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law.

When Nouri refused to step down and honor the election results, he created an eight month political stalemate where nothing happened.

And the White House backed him.

They even had US officials negotiate a legal contract, The Erbil Agreement,

Having voided the votes of the Iraqi people with this contract, the White House then refused to honor their promise to Iraqi politicians.

To get the blocks to agree to a second term for loser Nouri, the US officials insisted that the other political blocs could list their priorities in the contract (i.e. the Kurds had the implementation of Article 150 of the Iraqi Constitution as one of their items put into the contract) and that this was a legally binding contract with the full backing of the White House.

The day after it was signed, Parliament finally had their first really meeting, eight months after the elections.

And Nouri refused to honor the agreement, said he needed time, and Iraqiya walked out.

And Barack did what?

Called Ayad Allawi and asked him (begged) to send Iraqiya back into Parliament, insisting (yet again) that The Erbil Agreement had the full support and backing of the White House.

But when Nouri never implemented his part of The Erbil Agreement, when he just used it to get a second term and then ignored the promises he made?

The White House did nothing.

Acted like they knew nothing about the contract.

The 2010 elections let the Iraqi people see their votes overturned.

Now their leaders were protesting Nouri's refusal to implement The Erbil Agreement.  By the summer of 2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and cleric and movement leader (Shi'ite) Moqtada al-Sadr were calling for Nouri to implement The Erbil Agreement.

When he continued to refuse, they attempted to work within the Constitution and go for a recall vote.  But the US government wouldn't let that happen either.  They pressured the always willing to fold Jalal Talabani to invent an excuse to stop the Constitutional process and he did.

So now you have the voters stripped of their vote, their leaders stripped of their rights of Constitutional redress.

This is when Iraqis take to the street and begin what is over a year of protests.


Let's bring another idiot in real quick.


Today, Patrick Cockburn  offered more of his one-sided reporting:

The fact that so many Sunnis are alienated from or terrified by Isis should present an opportunity for Baghdad, since Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government is meant to be more inclusive than that of his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki. Increasingly aggressive sectarian policies pursued by Mr Maliki during his eight years in power are now blamed for turning peaceful protests by Sunnis into armed resistance and pushing the Sunni community into the arms of Isis. This is an over-simplified version of recent history, but with the new government lauded internationally for its non-sectarian stance, the Sunni hoped they would face less day-to-day repression. “Isis has shocked many Sunni by its actions,” says Mahmoud. “But instead of the government treating us better to win us over, they are treating us even worse.”

Noam Chomsky likes to praise Cockburn.

Probably because they both share that paternalistic nature when it comes to Arabs, that attitude of they know better than Arabs, that condescending nature that allows them to act like they're smarter than the Palestinians, etc.

Cockburn 'reports' on Iraq for the Independent.

He ignored the protests.

They lasted over a year.

And he ignored them.



He was far from alone in ignoring the protests.

To give you an idea of the protests, lets's drop back to the October 25, 2013 snapshot:

Iraqi Spring MC notes protests took place in Baquba, Samarra, Falluja, Mosul, Rawa, and Ramadi.  National Iraqi News Agency reports thousands turned out in Falluja and Ramadi for the Anbar sit-ins and quote Shiekh Mohammed Fayyad declaring, "The citizens participated in the prayers that held in the courtyard northern Ramadi and eastern Fallujah cities , stressing that the goal of this trickle is to send one again a message to the governing in Baghdad that our demonstrations are peaceful and backed by citizens deep conviction."  Al Mada reports organizers distributed forms in Ramadi and Falluja for families of the detained to fill out in the hopes that they can locate their loved one and determine the status.  Many are held without charges.  Many have been thrown in detention centers, jails and prisons for no reason -- they are accused of no crimes but are related to a suspect the police could not find so family members were knowing rounded up even though they were not suspects.  In Samaeea Sheikh Ziad Madhi noted that the protests are not about political parties but our about justice -- first and foremost, a call to release the innocent detainees.  In Baquba Shebab al-Badri echoed the emphasis on detainees and stated they would continue to demand the release of the detainees and continue to call for an end to the raids (mass arrests) that continue to target Sunni communities.  Kitabat reports on Sheikh Ziad Mahdi in Samarra who noted the detainees remain imprisoned and remain a priority of protesters.  The Sheikh noted the demands for the release of the innocent detainees continue because they have not been released so the sit-ins continue. He noted that Nouri al-Maliki is responsible for the continued deterioration of security in Iraq.  Iraqi Spring MC notes there were calls for the United Nations and others to witness what it really taking place in Iraq, calls for an end to Iranian interference in Iraq, Falluja speakers called for an end to injustice and the flowing of blood in the streets, and Nouri al-Maliki was denounced for using militias to stay in power.  Kitabat also reports on Sheikh Humam Kubaisi in Ramadi and how he noted ten months have passed and still the demands are not met.



These protests were ignored.


Nouri's attacks on the protesters were ignored.


January 7, 2013, Nouri's forces assaulted four protesters in Mosul,  January 24, 2013,  Nouri's forces sent two protesters (and one reporter) to the hospital,  and March 8, 2013, Nouri's force fired on protesters in Mosul killing three.


And then came the April 23rd massacre of a peaceful sit-in in Hawija which resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the death toll rose to 53 dead.  UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).

Finally, Patrick Cockburn was interested.

Not interested enough to note what UNICEF did.

To this day, Cockburn has never reported that 8 children were killed by Nouri's forces or that twelve more were wounded.

To this day.


But today he shows up to offer:


The fact that so many Sunnis are alienated from or terrified by Isis should present an opportunity for Baghdad, since Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government is meant to be more inclusive than that of his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki. Increasingly aggressive sectarian policies pursued by Mr Maliki during his eight years in power are now blamed for turning peaceful protests by Sunnis into armed resistance and pushing the Sunni community into the arms of Isis. This is an over-simplified version of recent history, but with the new government lauded internationally for its non-sectarian stance, the Sunni hoped they would face less day-to-day repression. “Isis has shocked many Sunni by its actions,” says Mahmoud. “But instead of the government treating us better to win us over, they are treating us even worse.”



The peaceful protests were not turned into armed resistance.

That's a lie.

It echoes Nouri's lie that the protesters were "terrorists."

As they reached the one year mark, Nouri announced he would burn down the protest sites and the people protesting.

He said that publicly on Iraqi television.

The Iraqi press reported it but Cockburn and the western press ignored it.

But now, he shows up to offer that the peaceful protesters took up arms.


That's the sort of crap that the State Dept offered when the Hawija slaughter took place with spokesperson Jen Psaki declaring the US government called for both sides to be rational.

The 8 children killed had been irrational?

It's suddenly okay to kill unarmed civilians including children?

And Jen Psaki could caution children that they needed to be rational and not so threatening to the poor little Iraqi forces.

The people were denied their vote, they were denied their officials seeking redress and now they were being attacked for exercising their right to peacefully assemble and protest.

This is the climate in which the Islamic State took hold.

Original sin?

On this 12th anniversary of the Iraq War, some are trying to pretend that today is all the result of March 19, 2003 (or March 20, 2003 since it was the 20th in most of the rest of the world when the bombings began).

It is really is about stupidity, isn't it?

Americans protested against the ongoing war.

They demonstrated.

If all was set in motion on March 19, 2003, we wasted our time.

We wasted our energy.

If you believe in this concept of 'original sin' with regard to the Iraq War.

This wasn't all set in motion.

If we'd had the power in 2004 to stop the illegal war, for example, things would be different today.

If we'd protested Barack's refusing to respect the vote of the Iraqi people, things would be different today.

If we'd protested Iraqi forces killing children?

Things would be different today.

'Original sin' with regards to the Iraq War is nonsense.

Yes, it's illegal.  Yes, it's unethical.

But if we had no power to mitigate it or lessen the pain, then we never should have protested.

If all the damage was done on that day, then what was the point of protesting?

I believe in protesting.

I believe in speaking out.

I also believe that the 'original sin' argument is the argument of the spineless.

They can't protest Barack.  They don't have the guts too -- even now.

The 'original sin' lie excuses their doing nothing year after year once Barack was sworn in as President of the United States.

It excuses the western press' repeated failures to report what was taking place in Iraq from 2010 to 2014.


In Iraq today, the Tikrit assault has revealed how weak the Baghdad - Tehran plan is and was.  Matt Bradley (Wall St. Journal) reports:

Iraqi security forces’ fight to liberate the city of Tikrit from Islamic State has slowed as the battle nears the end of its third week, dimming hopes that the extremist Sunni insurgency is on the retreat.
Iraqi security officials say their force of more than 20,000 fighters—mostly Shiite militiamen—has succeeded in forcing Islamic State from towns and villages to the south and east of the city, which lies about 87 miles northwest of Baghdad.

But the militias and soldiers have been unable to uproot the militants from the city center, where a few hundred Islamic State insurgents have been holed up for the past week protected by landmines, suicide bombers and snipers.

Dan Lamothe (Washington Post) adds:

The Pentagon warned on Thursday that Iraqi forces battling to reclaim the city of Tikrit are facing a tougher fight against the Islamic State than previously described.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren, speaking to reporters, said that Iraqi forces were now encircling the city of Tikrit, whose capture is seen as a key test of Iraq’s ability to defeat the Islamic State. Warren said the battles lines were now “static” and that Iraqi forces, which include government and militia fighters, had not yet moved into the city proper.

This was supposed to be the morale builder.

The battle that showed what the forces could do.

But let's again note  what Loveday Morris (Washington Post) reported yeserday:

Meanwhile, the pause in fighting in Tikrit has stirred doubts about whether pro-government forces can beat the Islamic State in street battles. Karim said the military decided to stall its advance to put in place a plan that would “guarantee fewer casualties.”
Workers in a cemetery in the southern city of Najaf, where many pro-government Shiite fighters are taken for burial, have said that as many as 60 fighters were dying a day at the peak of operations in Tikrit.
The pro-government forces are yet to enter the city center, but they have reclaimed a string of towns and villages in Salahuddin province, buoying morale among the about 20,000 militiamen who have joined the fight. A few hundred Sunni tribesmen also participated.

Three weeks in on their assault of Tikrit and they've still not made it to the center of the city.

Hundreds of Islamic State fighters are able to fight off over 20,000 Baghdad - Tehran forces.

No, it's not inspiring confidence.


Meanwhile, Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports at least 79 people were killed in violence across Iraq today.



Lastly, Senator Patty Murray serves on the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (and she has previously served as the Chair of both of those Committee).  Today, her office issued the following:




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                 CONTACT: Murray's Press Office
Thursday, March 19, 2015                                          (202) 224-2834
 
BUDGET/SEQUESTRATION: Murray Introduces Amendment to Replace Automatic Budget Cuts for Two More Years, Build on Bipartisan Budget Deal
 
Murray amendment to GOP budget would roll back sequestration for defense and non-defense investments
 
Murray: “Democrats and Republicans across the country have said that the across-the-board cuts to both defense and non-defense investments are terrible policy…need to be replaced”
 
MURRAY AMENDMENT BLOCKED BY COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS: Murray to continue fighting to replace automatic cuts, urges Republicans to work with her
 
Washington, D.C.—Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee, introduced and called for a Budget Committee vote on her amendment to the Senate Republican Budget that would replace sequestration evenly across defense and non-defense investments for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. Republicans voted Murray’s amendment down in the Committee, but she plans to continue fighting in the Committee and on the floor to build on the bipartisan budget deal and roll back the automatic cuts that are hurting families, communities, and the economy in Washington state and across the country.
 
“Democrats and Republicans across the country have said that the across-the-board cuts to both defense and non-defense investments are terrible policy, an absurd way to reduce the deficit, and need to be replaced,” said Murray while introducing her amendment. “I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can agree on responsible and realistic topline spending numbers for this year and allow the Appropriations Committees to do their work without waiting for another crisis…if my Republican colleagues have any other ideas for how we get this done—my door is open, and I am ready to get to work.”
 
At the end of 2013, Senator Murray and Representative Paul Ryan worked with their colleagues to pass the Bipartisan Budget Act, which prevented another government shutdown, rolled back sequestration evenly across defense and non-defense discretionary spending for two years, and moved Congress away from the constant crises.
 
The full text of Murray’s remarks introducing the bill follows:
 
Chairman Enzi, Ranking Member Sanders, I offer my amendment to build on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and extend the replacement of sequestration through fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
 
I don’t have to explain to most members of this committee why we need to replace the senseless automatic cuts with more responsible savings—I know almost all of you agree.
 
Democrats and Republicans across the country have said that the across-the-board cuts to both defense and non-defense investments are terrible policy, an absurd way to reduce the deficit, and need to be replaced.
 
There are Republicans on this Committee who have been very vocal about the need to roll back the cuts—and have even expressed openness to using revenue from the tax code to get this done.
 
Last year Democrats and Republicans were able to reach an agreement that rolled back the worst of these automatic cuts for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
 
Our deal prevented another government shutdown, moved us away from the constant crises, and restored critical investments in research, education, defense jobs, and more, and helped get the economy going again.
 
So this amendment builds on that deal and extends it for two more years.
 
It maintains the principle that Democrats will not abandon—that sequestration should be replaced evenly across defense and non-defense investments.
 
And it replaces the automatic cuts with new revenue from closing tax loopholes used by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, which, since this budget already contains massive spending cuts but no new revenue, would maintain the principle that sequestration should be replaced with a mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from those who can afford it most.
 
Finally, it includes language to automatically release the additional defense and nondefense funding to the Appropriations Committee upon the increase in the statutory caps, similar to language passed in the previous Senate Budget.  
 
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can agree on responsible and realistic topline spending numbers for this year and allow the Appropriations Committees to do their work without waiting for another crisis.
 
And if my Republican colleagues have any other ideas for how we get this done—my door is open—and I am ready to get to work.
 
###
 
--
Eli Zupnick
Communications Director
U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA)
(202) 224-2834
Eli_Zupnick@murray.senate.gov

@elizupnick