Thursday, September 29, 2016

That old drunk Tom Hayden

If you never got how worthless Tom Hayden was and is, you didn't check out his Twitter feed today.

This morning, early this morning, C.I. wrote "More US troops headed to Iraq -- PM of Iraq says" -- more US troops were going into Iraq.

When she reported it, it was accurate.  The US government just hadn't announced it.  She translated what the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi had posted to his own website (in Arabic).

As the day progressed, everyone began reporting on it.

But Tom Hayden couldn't be bothered.

He rode the Iraq War back into semi-fame.

But heaven forbid the sell out call out Barack or Hillary or any Democrat.

He's just an old drunk whoring his tired ass.

And a fake ass!

THIRD's latest edition takes on fake asses:

And it was written by:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.

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

Wednesday, September 28, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, Barack Obama's sending more US troops into Iraq, Haider al-Abadi pens an embarrassing column, Hillary Clinton hopes the press keeps forgetting how she raised the issue of George H.W. Bush's adultery in the 1992 presidential race, and much more.

Stephen Kalin and Yeganech Torbati (REUTERS) report, "The United States will send around 600 new troops to Iraq to assist local forces in the battle to retake Mosul from Islamic State that is expected later this year, U.S. and Iraqi officials said on Wednesday."  Barbara Starr (CNN) also reported on the addition.

That's this afternoon.  This morning, we put up "More US troops headed to Iraq -- PM of Iraq says:"

Quick translation of the above posted to Haider al-Abadi's website this morning (he's the prime minister of Iraq):

As they prepare for the major battle to fully liberate the city of Mosul and eliminate the gangs of [the Islamic State], and in light of the fact that trainers and advisers from the international coalition will speed up the conclusion of the battle, in consultation with US President Barack Obama and at the request of the Iraqi government the number of American trainers and advisers under the umbrella of the international coalition in Iraq will be increased to provide backup for the Iraqi security forces during the Liberation of Mosul -- and this size of advisers and trainers will reduce once Mosul has been liberated.  We emphasize that the role of trainers and advisers is not combat but only for training and consultation and the only ones who will liberate the land is our [Iraqi] troops.  

This means more US troops in Iraq.

Haider's not agreeing to more on site.  He wouldn't need to consult on that.  He's agreeing to more coming into the country.

On June 19, 2014, Barack Obama was quite clear about how many US troops might be going back into Iraq.

President Barack Obama:  We have had advisors in Iraq through our embassy, and we’re prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors -- up to 300 -- to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward.  American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.

Despite that assertion two years ago, Kalin and Torbati note that this "new deployment is the third such boost in U.S. troop levels in Iraq since April" while Ben Kesling and Carol E. Lee (DOW JONES NEWSWIRES) add, "The latest increase follows the separate decision earlier this month to add roughly 400 troops, sent primarily to staff a logistics hub near the city of Qayara, south of Mosul."  Focusing on the numbers, Daniel Wasserbly (IHS JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY) explains, "The total authorised US military personnel for Iraq is now around 5,250 troops, but hundreds more are understood to be operating there on a 'rotational' basis through temporary duty assignments."

Financial columnist Liz Peek (who used to be part of Marlo Thomas' WOW while it was active) Tweets:

Almost 5k troops in - no Status of Forces Agreement. Another lie from during debate

Where is the SOFA?

There's a Memo of Understanding -- we covered that.  One of the few who did in fact, we covered it in real time.

From the December 11, 2012 snapshot:

In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the United States of America.  Angry, dysfunctional e-mails from Barack-would-never-do-that-to-me criers indicate that we need to go over the Memo a little bit more.  It was signed on Thursday and announced that day by the Pentagon.   Section two (listed in full in yesterday's snapshot) outlines that the two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises.   The tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger numbers.  Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.
This shouldn't be surprising.  In the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- five years ago -- we covered the transcript of the interview Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did with then-Senator Barack Obama who was running in the Democratic Party's primary for the party's presidential nomination -- the transcript, not the bad article the paper published, the actual transcript.  We used the transcript to write "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'" at Third.  Barack made it clear in the transcript that even after "troop withdrawal" he would "leave behind a residual force."  What did he say this residual force would do?  He said, "I think that we should have some strike capability.  But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."
This is not withdrawal.  This is not what was sold to the American people.  Barack is very lucky that the media just happened to decide to take that rather explosive interview -- just by chance, certainly the New York Times wasn't attempting to shield a candidate to influence an election, right? -- could best be covered with a plate of lumpy, dull mashed potatoes passed off as a report.  In the transcript, Let-Me-Be-Clear Barack declares, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities."
So when the memo announces counterterrorism activies, Barack got what he wanted, what he always wanted, what the media so helpfully and so frequently buried to allow War Hawk Barack to come off like a dove of peace.

Not everyone is kicking back with a smile and popping open a can of beer as more US troops are sent into Iraq.  Ethan Forman (SALEM NEWS) reports on the reaction from US House Rep and Iraq War veteran Seth Moulton:

When asked about the role the U.S. troop advisers might play, Moulton said he has no doubt these troops could wind up seeing combat.
"This is clearly a combat mission," said Moulton, who noted that when he was in Iraq in 2004, his platoon had the role of being combat advisers to Iraqi troops in Najaf in central Iraq. But, when they went to the assistance of the Iraqis, the U.S. troops saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Iraq war.
"We do need to defeat ISIS," he said, but the key is "how will this time be different."

Sadly, Seth Moulton is a rare Democrat with a spine.

The biggest disappointment in Congress in the last eight years would be US House Rep Barbara Lee who called for an end to the Iraq War when Bully Boy Bush was in the Oval Office but today can only manage . . .

500 more US troops headed to –but Congress still won’t debate or vote on this war against

Yes, Babsie, that's the problem -- that Congress won't debate it.

Not that the war continues, just that Congress won't debate it.

I don't know if the fake ass gets it or not but America watched her for the last seven years claim that if US troops were still in Afghanistan next year -- always next year -- she'd be doing something in Congress.

She never did a damn thing.

Shane Ryan (PASTE) deserves noting for having the courage Babsie Lee lacks:

So, there are a few questions we could ask, such as:
1. Even if we retake Mosul, is this really going to measurably fix the situation in Iraq in the long term?
2. What happens when we leave?
3. When the Iraqi forces prove incapable of maintaining whatever we accomplish, does that mean we can’t leave?

But then again, why even bother asking these questions? It’s clear that Obama, and the entire American political leadership, is just fine with repeating the mistakes of the past, over and over and over, with no concern for the fact that it just doesn’t work. If the sign of insanity is repeating the same stupid action ad nauseam while expecting different results, then what would you call this?

Meanwhile Haider al-Abadi has a column at USA TODAY that's an embarrassment and includes this:

As we fight, we are aware that military means alone are not enough to end ISIL. As the prime minister and commander in chief of our forces, I spend as much time on the military aspect of the war as I do in addressing the causes that led us to today.
Here I must admit that as Iraqis, we need to do more to fight sectarianism and corruption, two evils that are no less dangerous to our society than terrorism and ISIL. We will not waver in the war against them because of the war against ISIL.
[. . .]
We realize that sectarianism created the gaps that ISIL and its predecessors managed to temporarily fill. Their continued presence in our country hinders the process of reconciliation. Expelling ISIL is a prerequisite for peace, but help from the international community is still needed for us to reach that day.

When, Haider, when are you going to do something to stop the persecution of the Sunnis?

You were installed as prime minister in the fall of 2014.

It's two years later.

The persecution continues.

You're no better than Nouri al-Maliki and his policies of persecution gave the Islamic State the footing they needed.

Staying with lying politicians, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

At THE WASHINGTON POST, Shawn Boburg attempts to explore "Enabler or family defender? How Hillary Clinton's Responded to Husband's accusers" and does a fairly good job.

I'm going to object to the use of the term "sexual assault."

It's assault.  We say "assault."  "Sexual assault" implies it's about sex.

In Boburg's example of Juanita Broaddrick, the woman has consistently accused Bill Clinton of rape.

Stop calling assault "sexual assault."  I don't use the term "sex crime" either.

These are assaults and rapes and attempted rapes.

Aside from that?

Boburg misses one of the biggest events.  Yes, the article reviews how Hillary collaborated in smearing women who accused Bill Clinton of assault and of rape and of harassment and even notes Monica Lewinsky on the topic (Hillary smeared her on THE TODAY SHOW).

But Hillary and her whiners love to claim that it's off sides, impolite for anyone to bring up these affairs.

It's just wrong -- boo, hoo.

What a load of s**t.

First off, we know Bill couldn't keep it in his pants the last time he was living in the White House and a lot of us know he's been cheating on Hillary since leaving the White House (and who the main woman is) so there's a good chance if Hillary's back in the White House with Bill that Bill's going to get caught in another affair.

That's going to drag the nation through the gutter yet again.

She's running for president, it's an issue.

Her little snit fit during the Monica days demonstrate that maybe such a development would leave her unable to function as president.

So it's an issue.

If she wants to claim to be a defender of women, her attacks on those who have accused her husband in the past is an issue.

There's that and so much more.

Her whiners insist it is unfair to hold Hillary accountable for the behavior of her husband.

She chose to stay with him.

I don't mean after Monica, I mean after Gennifer.

And she slimed Gennifer while lying that her husband hadn't had an affair with Gennifer Flowers.

She chose to stay with him, that's an endorsement of his continued actions.

And despite his long pattern of cheating, when Monica was exposed, she attacked Lewinsky.

So she needs to be held accountable.

But there's another part, it's the part of the story that Ava and I covered back in July:

Bill slept with Gennifer Flowers -- as he admitted under oath near the end of the 90s.

But in 1992, when Ms. Flowers was telling her tale, what did Hillary do?

Bob Somerby won't tell you.

He's too busy lying about Pauline Kale with 'facts' like she wrote for THE NEW YORK TIMES, "The mentality behind such works produced a famous moment in December 1972, when Times film critic Pauline Kael expressed surprise that Nixon had won the White House again."

It was THE NEW YORKER, you cultural idiot, she wrote for THE NEW YORKER, not THE NEW YORK TIMES.

And it wasn't poor Hillary in 1992.

Not in the pages of VANITY FAIR.

"Double standard."

Bob knows the term, he never quotes Hillary on it, nor does anyone else.

Her husband slept with Jennifer Flowers and she knew about it.

But the 'victim' Hillary chose to use Gail Sheehy's interview with her for VANITY FAIR to insist that it was a "double standard" because people knew about "Bush and his carrying on, all of which is apparently well known in Washington."

That's our 'feminist' Hillary.

Her cheating husband is getting questioned?

She tosses Barbara Bush under the bus.

Hillary's never been a victim.

She's always been involved.

She's always figured out how to go after Bill's various mistresses, she's always figured out how to present herself as innocent and wronged.

Ty saw THE WASHINGTON POST article and called me ticked off because that article doesn't note  the VANITY FAIR article.  I don't read e-mails to THIRD about what Ava and I write there.  Ty passed on over the phone that negative e-mails on the above insisted that never happened and we'd made the whole thing up.

Too lazy to go to a real library and look up the article in VANITY FAIR all those years ago, they just decided it was a lie.

Here's something that should be easier for you to check, page 134 of Joan Didion's POLITICAL FICTIONS -- click here and you can order it instantly on KINDLE for $11.99 or pick up a used copy for one cent (plus postage) via snail mail.  Here's what you'll find on that page:

Apparent accidents, and even some apparent mistakes in judgment, had emerged over time as less accidental than strategic.  There was Hillary Clinton's "gaffe" in complaining to Gail Sheehy, interviewing her for Vanity Fair, that the press was following a "double standard" in dwelling on her husband's alleged friendship with Gennifer Flowers, since Anne Cox Chambers ("sittin' there in her sunroom") had told her about "Bush and his carrying on, all of which is apparently well known in Washington."  This was an "embarrassment," a "mistake," and yet the appearance of the Vanity Fair piece coincided with Clinton strategists issuing the same preemptive warning to the Bush campaign; with Ron Brown suggesting that if the questions about adultery were to persist, he thought similar questions should be put to Bush; and with Democratic consultant Robert Squier suggesting on the NBC Today show that Bush be asked what he called "the Jennifer question."  Nor was just the single point scored: there was also considerable secondary gain in showing Mrs. Clinton as "feminine," a weaker vessel, gossiping with a friend over tea in the sunroom and then retailing the gossip to a new friend -- who, in the "unfrminine" role of reporter, the wife's moment of indiscretion in her husband's defense.  The erring but contrite wife could then be firmly but gently "reprimanded" by the presumptive CINC, her husband ("The main point is, she apologized . . . she made a mistake and she's acknowledge it"), an improved role for both of them.

To the press, in a presidential election, Hillary raised the issue of George H.W. Bush cheating on Barbara Bush with his own Jennifer Fitzgerald.  (Donna Brazile did the same during the Michael Dukakis campaign and was forced to leave the campaign as a result.)

It was not by accident, it was not by chance.

And not only did she herself raise the issue of adultery in a presidential campaign, she did it while playing stereotypical archetypes to manipulate the press.

Which is the other issues -- she's played with gender roles before, she's worked them when she's wanted to.

She's no innocent in this.

That's the point Joan Didion's making in the paragraph above.

And if you're too cheap to buy a good book -- or maybe you're a victim of the 'rebounding' recovery as so many are -- you can find Joan's essay online for free here at THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS -- scroll a little over a third way down the page for the paragraphs.  (Paragraphs?  In the book it's one paragraph, in the online essay, the paragraph is split into two paragraphs.)

Jill Stein is the Green Party presidential candidate.

Not only did she vote for in but she also herself initiated regime changes and invasions

And violence continues in Iraq . . . .

High ranking |i army officers among 33 others killed and 6 others wounded in a snap attack north Baghdad; according to Aamaq..

And the US Defense Dept announced today:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 10 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Qaim, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle bomb-making facility.

-- Near Kisik, a strike produced inconclusive results.

-- Near Mosul, four strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit, suppressed a mortar system and destroyed an anti-air artillery system and a tunnel.

-- Near Qayyarah, two strikes destroyed two ISIL vehicles and a mortar system.

-- Near Ramadi, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike destroyed an ISIL mortar system and damaged an excavator.

Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

A powerful message

Voting Green isn't a protest vote. It's a vote to build power for people, planet & peace over profit.

Which is why you should vote Green if you're still in need of a reason.

We are moving to the future.

It's one step at a time, one foot in front of the other.

I'm voting for Jill and would love to see her win the presidency this November.

But just voting for her moves us closer to a better world.

It serves notice to the Democratic Party that veering right risks losing those of us on the left.

It serves notice to the Democratic Party that a number of us will not be held hostage or motivated by fear.

I think that's a powerful message.

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

Tuesday, September 27, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, nation-building is raised, whoring continues and much more.

Jed Babbin (WASHINGTON TIMES) offers:

Our Pentagon leaders are reportedly readying a request to President Obama to send another 400 or 500 U.S. troops to Iraq. They would join the 4,400 there and be tasked to help the Iraqis retake the city of Mosul from the Islamic State. (According to a Wall Street Journal report, there is an additional force of about 1,500 troops who guard the massive U.S. embassy in Baghdad, some of whom are sent on “special missions.”)
Whatever the troops’ mission, it is painfully obvious that our generals are still stuck on the nation-building strategy that we have pursued in both Iraq and Afghanistan since we invaded those countries in 2001 and 2003. It’s the same strategy that they are following now with the request for more troops to go to Iraq, and it’s just as wrong as it was in 2001.

Baddin's against nation building.

I am as well.  You can't build a government with a military.

But let's set that aside for just a moment.

Let's imagine Hillary Clinton becomes president.

This is a War Hawk belief -- they can build nations.

Barack's already trying.

But dropping bombs daily on Iraq does not form anything but chaos.

So should Hillary get to be president, let's hope there's some maturity in the country -- there wasn't under Barack -- and someone demands that she set goals.

Because if you're going to try nation building, you better be able to show results.

That's not "The leader we installed said . . ."

Statements don't count.

Intentions don't count.

Only results count.

And if Hillary wants to do nation building, she better be held accountable.

(I have no idea if Donald Trump would try nation building.  Jill Stein and Gary Johnson would not engage in it.)

Over two years ago, Barack said he was helping Iraq.

There's still nothing to show for it.

The government's no better than it was then.

They did -- with little fanfare -- recently pass a de-Ba'athifcation law in the Parliament.

It wasn't needed.

L. Paul Bremer did that years ago -- it's cited as one of the biggest disasters of all actions taken after deciding to go to war on Iraq.

Barack has failed at national reconciliation in Iraq.

Why is that a surprise to anyone?

Bully Boy Bush failed at it as well.

As long as you give the (US-installed) government of Iraq what it wants, it's exile prime minister will not do a thing to foster national reconciliation.

Iraq has a very young population.

How many more exiles is the US going to be able to install as prime minister before the Iraqi people revolt?

I think it's nearing the point now.

And, as with most warning signs, everyone in the west is looking elsewhere.

Last night's 'big' debate?

This is how caring for the youngest residents of our world looks like in a displacement camp in

That's more important than the debates.  (And, yes, Mika is correct, Monday night's debate didn't change a thing for either side.)

Equally true, people still can't be honest.

Given Trump's ranting bout Obama pulling out of Iraq -does he really not know withdrawal date was set by Bush in binding agreement w/ Iraq?

I know VANITY FAIR is the joke among publications but, even so, Kurt should be able to tell the truth.

Bully Boy Bush replaced the year long MOA the United Nations did for the occupation of Iraq.  He replaced it with a three year SOFA because Nouri al-Maliki could not face a yearly renewal (Iraqi politicians -- like the Iraqi people -- wanted the US gone and Nouri couldn't face a yearly fight in Parliament as he had with the MOA).  The contract had a yearly kill clause -- either side could opt out -- and it ended in 2011.

A contract ended.

That's all that happened.

Barack understood what Liar Liar Kurt didn't which is why he attempted to renegotiate.

It's also why he continued to attempt to renegotiate after the drawdown of December 2011.

Liar Liar Kurt wants to ignore reality.

Maybe that's why he writes for the 48 HOURS of print publications?

Who knows.

But Barack tried repeatedly to renegotiate but, as with bringing the Olympics to Chicago, he was a failure.

Let's do another:

? Are you referring to Libya? Iraq? Yemen? Honduras? She slays women. All over the world. Maybe let's play the quiet game.

You know what's stupid and obese?

Claiming that it's "adult" and "elegant" to start a war that's destroyed the Middle East.

And doing so while Jewish -- thereby fanning the flames just a little bit more.

Before you say, "You'd think she --" remember, this is Lena.

She's incapable of thought.

Hillary's Iraq War is a War Crime and only some overweight, ugly, snooty, spoiled princess from NYC could ever think there was anything "elegant" about it.

Not even a neocon would make that claim.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War, she championed it, she only stopped when even she noted the majority of the country had turned against it.  Then she said it was a "mistake" and expected everyone to immediately absolve her.

Over one million Iraqis are dead as a result of her 'mistake.'

Millions more were left injured as a result of her 'mistake.'

Millions were forced to flee as a result of her 'mistake.'

The rights of Iraqi women were dealt a major set back as a result of her 'mistake.'

But she's done nothing to atone for her mistake.

Isn't enough that she says "mistake"?  Why must the world persist in expecting her to be responsible for her actions?

Lena needs to go back to her racist bubble and leave the rest of the world alone.  As it tries to leave her alone by ignoring her repeatedly.

Let's do one more Tweet:

So it's come to Iraq war supporters who support Trump trying to prove he didn't support the war they supported to support him?

Which would also mean it has come to some Iraq War opponents -- and at 13 years and counting, you can capitalize the "W," you fake ass -- who support Hillary trying to pretend she wasn't for the war they were against.

Matt never asks about the Sunnis in Iraq, does he?

At press briefing after press briefing, Matt can be counted on to ignore the reported War Crimes, even when Amnesty and Human Rights Watch documents them.

Zainab Iraqi girl She was raped by 5 men from Shia militias backed by Iran in & forced her photographed naked OMG

The Arab world is outraged by the persecution of the Sunnis.

In the west, very few seem to care.

Very few seem to pay attention.

It's going to be one of the big issues of this century.

Probably not a good idea to wait twenty or thirty years to start attempting to inform western news consumers of what's actually going on.

Instead of discussing and addressing it, the west will be mute and, in doing so, cede the conversation over to the Islamic State.

Possibly at today's US Senate Homeland Security hearing, this is what FBI Director James Comey was getting at when he spoke of future threats and identified Islamic State fighters spreading from Syria and Iraq?

Director James Comey:  The threats posed by foreign fighters, including those recruited from the US, traveling to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and from homegrown violent extremists are extremely dynamic. The tragic event in Orlando last June is a somber reminder of this threat. The FBI is leading a Federal terrorism investigation with the assistance of our State, local, and Federal partners. The ongoing investigation has developed strong indications of radicalization by this killer, but further investigation is needed to determine if this attack was inspired by a foreign terrorist organization. We are spending a tremendous amount of time trying to understand every moment of the killer's path, to understand his motives, and to understand the details of his life. We will continue to look forward in this investigation, and backward. Our work is very challenging. We are looking for needles in a nationwide haystack, but we are also called upon to figure out which pieces of hay might someday become needles. That is hard work and the particular challenge of identifying homegrown violent extremists. These threats remain the highest priority and create the most serious challenges for the FBI, the US Intelligence Community, and our foreign, State, and local partners. ISIL is relentless and ruthless in its pursuits to terrorize individuals in Syria and Iraq, including Westerners. We continue to identify individuals who seek to join the ranks of foreign fighters traveling in support of ISIL, and also homegrown violent extremists who may aspire to attack the United States from within. In addition, we are confronting an explosion of terrorist propaganda and training available via the Internet and social networking media. Due to online recruitment and indoctrination, foreign terrorist organizations are no longer dependent on finding ways to get terrorist operatives into the US to recruit and carry out acts.

We refuse to engage in this dialogue and we suffer the consequences.

We whore for Hillary by calling her Iraq actions "elegant" in the face of death and destruction and that only makes the west look even worse to the Arab world.

There aren't enough adults left in the room these days to send the Lena Dumham's to their rooms without dinner.

Meanwhile Andrew Tilgham (MILITARY TIMES) reported Monday:

U.S. troops in Iraq are facing the threat of more chemical weapons attacks as Islamic State militants prepare to defend against a final invasion of Mosul, a defense official said.

The dire warning from the Pentagon comes almost one week after a shell that tested positive for “mustard agent” landed inside the wire at Qayara West, an Iraqi-controlled air base where several hundred U.S. forces are helping Iraqi Army units build a staging area for the upcoming offensive into Mosul.  

The official is Pentagon spokesperson Jeff Davis.

You may want to remember that name.

But what are they talking about?

Dropping back to September 22nd:

ISIS Believed To Attack US Base In Iraq With Gas. In the past they used it against the


Barbara Starr (CNN) reports on the unverified claims here.

Did it happen?

Who knows.


Or maybe it's just Barack's very own Gulf of Tonkin to allow for even more US troops to be sent into Iraq.

After all, Gordon Lubold and Paul Sonne (WALL STREET JOURNAL) report, "The U.S. military is requesting authority to send up to 500 new troops to Iraq ahead of a much-anticipated campaign to take back Mosul from Islamic State, according to U.S. officials, adding to an expanding American presence in the country."

Did it happen?

Now we know.

It did not.

Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) reports:

A rocket fired last week at an Iraqi base where American troops are present did not contain a chemical agent despite earlier suspicions, the U.S. military reported Tuesday.
Extensive laboratory tests concluded that the munition did not contain mustard agent, Air Force Col. John Dorrian, a U.S. military spokesman, said.

No mustard gas despite spokesperson Jeff Davis working the press on Monday.

What did happen?

AP reports Baghdad bombings today left 17 people dead and twenty-eight injured.