Happy 10th Birthday...

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

Fixed.

If only that could be true......

[BDKJMU]

The best $4 Trillion the US has ever spent.




Not really. It is funny to see Republicans bitching about $1 million for arts, etc, when they gave DUMBYA a blank check to fight his personal war, and refused to find a way to pay for it other than debt.

2.2 Trillion according to this (which may very well be a lefty site):
"The US federal price tag for the Iraq war — including an estimate for veterans' medical and disability costs into the future — is about $2.2 trillion dollars."
http://costsofwar.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now if you add on Afghanistan, $ spent and future costs- 4 trillion.

Your hero Obama has already added over 6 trillion to the national debt, on pace to hit 12 trillion...

[D1B]

Fixed.

Huh? I think it's horrible what happened to the guy. How do you suppose I don't?

You, like the rest of the conkleheads, supported invading Iraq.

His blood and others is on your hands. Nice work, warmonger.

[ASUG8]

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution, but don't let facts get in the way.

[kalm]

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution, but don't let facts get in the way.

Yep. And they were all wrong too, but it will always be considered Cheney's war.

[D1B]

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution, but don't let facts get in the way.

So what, BDFUCK - lite? You conks kill people, including americans.

[ASUG8]

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution, but don't let facts get in the way.

Yep. And they were all wrong too, but it will always be considered Cheney's war.

True, but Clinton was sabre rattling and lobbing missiles at Sudanese, Afghan, and Iraqi "chemical weapons" facilities several years prior to the Iraq resolution, which is really not relevant to some here.

[ASUG8]

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution, but don't let facts get in the way.

So what, BDFUCK - lite? You conks kill people, including americans.

Nope, just being objective. Bill and Obama have halos in your mind, but they have lots of blood on their hands just like Bush.

[Seahawks08]

True, but Clinton was sabre rattling and lobbing missiles at Sudanese, Afghan, and Iraqi "chemical weapons" facilities several years prior to the Iraq resolution, which is really not relevant to some here.

My memory is a little fuzzy, but how many American troops died under Clinton compared to Bush? Only Bush, Cheney, Wolfawitz, Rumsfeld, etc. made up evidence to get the US public and Congress to accept an invasion. Compared to Bush, Clinton had a halo.

[YoUDeeMan]

The Last Letter

A Message to Obama From a Dying Veteran

To: Obama
From: An Afghan verteran

I write this letter on behalf of my fellow Iraq and Afghan War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 1,560 soldiers and Marines who died in Afghanistan...heck, only 630 of us died there under Bush.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Those forces were defeated by Bush many years ago. Instead, you had me fighting against a bunch of fvcking corrupt goat herders who take your millions in aid while decapitating girls for tempting the men who raped them.

You lied about wanting to get out of Iraq...You actually wanted our troops to stay, despite your promises to people like me and the rest of the Amrican people. Luckily, the Iraq goverment shut down your plan to continue American presence in order to control and export their oil. Now you are trying to extend the American withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan...over protests from the Afghan government...despite telling your fellow Americans that you'd get us out of there. Nope, you want us to stay because of the precious minerals in that country. Our blood for your corporate friends' profits.

You, are a lying, greedy sack of shvt.


Truth.

Don't let it blind you liberals.

[houndawg]

The Last Letter

A Message to Obama From a Dying Veteran

To: Obama
From: An Afghan verteran

I write this letter on behalf of my fellow Iraq and Afghan War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 1,560 soldiers and Marines who died in Afghanistan...heck, only 630 of us died there under Bush.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Those forces were defeated by President Dead or Alive many years ago. Instead, you had me fighting against a bunch of fvcking corrupt goat herders who take your millions in aid while decapitating girls for tempting the men who raped them.

You lied about wanting to get out of Iraq...You actually wanted our troops to stay, despite your promises to people like me and the rest of the Amrican people. Luckily, the Iraq goverment shut down your plan to continue American presence in order to control and export their oil. Now you are trying to extend the American withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan...over protests from the Afghan government...despite telling your fellow Americans that you'd get us out of there. Nope, you want us to stay because of the precious minerals in that country. Our blood for your corporate friends' profits.

You, are a lying, greedy sack of shvt.


Truth.

Don't let it blind you liberals.

Dead or Alive. Poor guy would probably still be with us if somebody hadn't sent 90% of the troops to the wrong country.

[YoUDeeMan]

Dead or Alive. Poor guy would probably still be with us if somebody hadn't sent 90% of the troops to the wrong country.

Nah...there's a new cowboy in town and Obama is intent on getting even more of our people killed. We're arming Syrian rebels...yes we are. And where do you think those arms will go after some Anti-US Syrians get bored with killing each other? Isreal? Yup. US bases around the globe? Yup.

The funny thing is that Obama wants to limit assault rifles for Americans yet he's spreading weapons that will be killing our people around the world.

Here's a good read about Obama's view on defining terrorism and defining the bad guys...D1B should take notes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchan ... raq-border" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"So it's the US position that looks strange. It spent billions of dollars and the lives of nearly 4,500 soldiers in Iraq, fighting to put down a Sunni insurgency that was described as a grave threat to American interests. Today, the US government policy is assisting a Sunni insurgency in Syria that is not only similar in character to the one put down in Iraq, but has surviving Iraqi veterans of the war serving in it. The ISI’s core strength is in Anbar Province (these folks fought ferocious pitched battles against the US in Fallujah in 2004 and 2005), and its members have strong family and tribal ties along the Euphrates river into Syria.

The US knows this, and is trying to find a way to reassure countries like Iraq that Sunni Islamists will not dominate Syria if Assad is defeated. After all, Iraq may be helping Assad a little bit, but it could do a lot more if its alarm levels rise. In essence, the US is pursuing a policy that's harmful to Iraqi interests, can potentially empower people that are hostile to both Iraqi and US interests, and is trying to use language to smooth all this over.

Which led Nuland into a very odd, strained statement. She appeared to define terrorism as killing anyone not in the middle of an all-out battle. "We’ve been pretty clear about calling out attacks against folks who are not in the middle of a firefight all the way through this from both sides," she said. By this definition, every drone assassination carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations has been terrorism, as have the frequent tactics of bombing or ambushing insurgents at home, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's an absurd definition of terrorism. Usually governments say absurd things when the policy being discussed is filled with contradictions."

Obushma!

[YoUDeeMan]

Hmmmm...we've had more of our people's blood shed in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush...and we're still giving Karsi and his corrupt friends hundreds of millions of money to steal...all while nothing has changed. Well, except now Obama is killing a lot of Pakistani civilians.

Obushma tried valiantly to EXTEND (yes, you read that right...Obama wanted our troops to stay in Iraq, depsite his promised to Americans to get them out...actually, you didn't read that because you have your head up your azz ), our stay in Iraq...but the Iraqis denied Obama's terms.

Syria has had 50,000-70,000 dead in the last two years under Obushma.

Tens of thousands died in Libya under Obushma.

Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood under Obushma's watch...and he's giving them billions (while he tightening the money to our schools).

Detroit had 379 murders last year under Obushma.

Bankers still rolling in dough under Obushma. Still waiting for convictions of those bad, bad Wall Street folks...

Gitmo still open under Obushma...government is even less transparent under Obushma...

Credibility.

quoted in case you are still on Wedgie's ignore.

[houndawg]

Dead or Alive. Poor guy would probably still be with us if somebody hadn't sent 90% of the troops to the wrong country.

Nah...there's a new cowboy in town and Obama is intent on getting even more of our people killed. We're arming Syrian rebels...yes we are. And where do you think those arms will go after some Anti-US Syrians get bored with killing each other? Isreal? Yup. US bases around the globe? Yup.

The funny thing is that Obama wants to limit assault rifles for Americans yet he's spreading weapons that will be killing our people around the world.

Here's a good read about Obama's view on defining terrorism and defining the bad guys...D1B should take notes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchan ... raq-border" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"So it's the US position that looks strange. It spent billions of dollars and the lives of nearly 4,500 soldiers in Iraq, fighting to put down a Sunni insurgency that was described as a grave threat to American interests. Today, the US government policy is assisting a Sunni insurgency in Syria that is not only similar in character to the one put down in Iraq, but has surviving Iraqi veterans of the war serving in it. The ISI’s core strength is in Anbar Province (these folks fought ferocious pitched battles against the US in Fallujah in 2004 and 2005), and its members have strong family and tribal ties along the Euphrates river into Syria.

The US knows this, and is trying to find a way to reassure countries like Iraq that Sunni Islamists will not dominate Syria if Assad is defeated. After all, Iraq may be helping Assad a little bit, but it could do a lot more if its alarm levels rise. In essence, the US is pursuing a policy that's harmful to Iraqi interests, can potentially empower people that are hostile to both Iraqi and US interests, and is trying to use language to smooth all this over.

Which led Nuland into a very odd, strained statement. She appeared to define terrorism as killing anyone not in the middle of an all-out battle. "We’ve been pretty clear about calling out attacks against folks who are not in the middle of a firefight all the way through this from both sides," she said. By this definition, every drone assassination carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations has been terrorism, as have the frequent tactics of bombing or ambushing insurgents at home, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's an absurd definition of terrorism. Usually governments say absurd things when the policy being discussed is filled with contradictions."

Obushma!

Filed under Preaching to the Choir.

[mrklean]

The Last Letter

A Message to Obama From a Dying Veteran

To: Obama
From: An Afghan verteran

I write this letter on behalf of my fellow Iraq and Afghan War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 1,560 soldiers and Marines who died in Afghanistan...heck, only 630 of us died there under Bush.

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Those forces were defeated by Bush many years ago. Instead, you had me fighting against a bunch of fvcking corrupt goat herders who take your millions in aid while decapitating girls for tempting the men who raped them.

You lied about wanting to get out of Iraq...You actually wanted our troops to stay, despite your promises to people like me and the rest of the Amrican people. Luckily, the Iraq goverment shut down your plan to continue American presence in order to control and export their oil. Now you are trying to extend the American withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan...over protests from the Afghan government...despite telling your fellow Americans that you'd get us out of there. Nope, you want us to stay because of the precious minerals in that country. Our blood for your corporate friends' profits.

You, are a lying, greedy sack of shvt.


Truth.

Don't let it blind you liberals.

TOTAL BULLSHYT

[ASUG8]

True, but Clinton was sabre rattling and lobbing missiles at Sudanese, Afghan, and Iraqi "chemical weapons" facilities several years prior to the Iraq resolution, which is really not relevant to some here.

My memory is a little fuzzy, but how many American troops died under Clinton compared to Bush? Only Bush, Cheney, Wolfawitz, Rumsfeld, etc. made up evidence to get the US public and Congress to accept an invasion. Compared to Bush, Clinton had a halo.

More troops died under Bush, but far more under Obama - your memory is a little fuzzy. If Bush manufactured intel, then he inherited it from the Clinton administration.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs[/youtube]

[kalm]

My memory is a little fuzzy, but how many American troops died under Clinton compared to Bush? Only Bush, Cheney, Wolfawitz, Rumsfeld, etc. made up evidence to get the US public and Congress to accept an invasion. Compared to Bush, Clinton had a halo.

More troops died under Bush, but far more under Obama - your memory is a little fuzzy. If Bush manufactured intel, then he inherited it from the Clinton administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the abstract, challenging CIA’s analysis is a good thing: agency analysts get stuff wrong, as evidenced by Saddam’s non-WMD. But in this case, it was problematic. The nature of intelligence analysis is to gather as much information as possible to assist a policymaker in making difficult choices. If a policymaker has a preference for what the intelligence product should say, that pollutes the objectivity of the intelligence — and diminishes its value.

On Sunday, March 16, 2003, I watched Cheney on “Meet The Press” contradict our assessment publicly. “We know that he [Saddam] has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups,” Cheney said, “including the al-Qaeda organization.” I was basically watching Cheney field-test arguments that we would have to anticipate — and rebut — at CIA. Except instead of asking us questions behind closed doors, Cheney was asserting to the public as fact something that we found to be anything but. I found myself yelling at the TV like I was contesting a ref’s blown call in a football game.

The agency’s intelligence collection on Iraq’s relationship with al-Qaida was thin — Iraq’s connections to terrorist organizations were so minute it wasn’t a priority for us — so it was difficult to even construct a chart showing connections, as if we were mapping the Barksdale crew on The Wire. Saddam has a history of supporting small, anti-Israel terrorist groups; in early 2002, due to the war in Afghanistan, the terrorist leader Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi moved into Iraq on his own, with no direction or control by al-Qaida or Saddam; there were reports of varying reliability saying Iraq had discussions with al-Qaida about establishing a safe haven, dating from the early 1990s. The Zarqawi stuff would prove to be relevant, after the U.S. invasion. The rest of it didn’t add up to much. We concluded that, at most, the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida was like two independent groups trying to exploit each other.

None of that stopped the invasion. Nor did the invasion stop the troll-y back-and-forth with the White House on Saddam and terrorism. When I volunteered to deploy to Iraq, my boss’ boss wouldn’t spare me for four days’ worth of weapons training. ( “I would rather have you come back in a body bag than spend that much time out of the office,” he told me.) They were so frantic to respond to White House questions that supporting the actual war effort took a back seat.

As it turned out, the questions wouldn’t stop once the invasion occurred. In June 2003, the Defense Department started to report that troops discovered caches of Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents allegedly proving Saddam was tight with al-Qaida.

The documents claimed to directly link Mohammed Atta, one of the main 9/11 hijackers, with the Baghdad training camp of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist. It was a hand-written note, supposedly by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). If the documents were real, it was damning evidence that Iraq worked with al-Qaida long before the 9/11 attacks; if not, someone embarked on a very sophisticated strategy to play the U.S. government, our team or both.

And if this was truly a smoking gun, our team would be blamed — rightly — for getting it wrong. There was a sense of urgency at the CIA to evaluate these documents and provide an answer.

We got to work. We worked with the Secret Service to test the ink. If we could determine how old the ink itself was, we would have a time frame for when the documents were prepared. While in Iraq, I asked every high-level Iraqi government detainee I could about the details of the document. They either had grave doubts, or flatly said the document was bogus. They were adamant the names and roles outlined in the documents didn’t match the structure of the IIS. Having studied the Iraqi intelligence apparatus extensively before the war, everything they said lined up with the structure we understood to be true. The FBI had put together a timeline of Atta’s 2001 travels around the world, culling together airline records, ATM withdrawals and hotel receipts. Much like the infamous “Prague meeting” — another ultimately-bogus thread weaving al-Qaida together with Saddam — the FBI material indicated Atta was in the U.S. when the IIS document indicated he was meeting with Abu Nidal in Iraq.

Our Branch Chief, Karen, walked into Cheney’s office with everything we’d uncovered about the Abu Nidal link in June 2003. It seemed airtight. The Secret Service had determined that the paper was made after the date printed on the page. The timeframes didn’t match. The ink was inconsistent with the ink manufactured in the early 1990s purported timeframe of the documents. The chain of command indicated in the documents contradicted the description of the Iraqi intelligence bureaucracy provided by our detainees, even down to incorrect titles. These were forgeries.

I wasn’t there, but I heard the vice president was gracious and thanked her.

I actually quit the CIA for 3 days in 2004. I was exhausted answering historical questions trying to justify the invasion while at the same time trying to define Iraqi al-Qaida leader Zarqawi’s growing role as a real threat. I couldn’t take it. People were dying and we were still talking about evidence of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. After a few phone calls with leadership in the Counterterrorism Center, I went back after 3 days and switched roles to the operations side — the National Clandestine Service — heading up the targeting operations team looking for Zarqawi. Instead of writing about him, I wanted to find him, I felt like the U.S. accidentally gave him a platform that helped him grow into a major terrorist. I moved onto another assignment a few months before he was killed in 2006.

After leaving the CIA, I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on this sorry absurd role in intelligence history, and my bit role in it. No intelligence analyst should have to deal with policymakers delving into intelligence work. It sounds bureaucratic and boring, but the distinction matters: CIA doesn’t have a policy agenda, it seeks to inform those agendas. Politicians and appointees have ideas for shaping the world. Mingling the two is a recipe for self-delusion and, as we saw in Iraq, failure.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... elligence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

TOTAL BULLSHYT

The only bullshvt is the stuff filling inside you and blocking your brown eyes from wanting to see the truth.

Let's review:

1,560 soldiers and Marines who died in Afghanistan...heck, only 630 of us died there under Bush.

FACT: check, the stats...they may be off a couple kids one way or the other, but FAR MORE soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush. Added FACT: we got Bin Laden well over a year ago...and we've lsot several hundred more troops since Obama's "Mission Accomplished".

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Those forces were defeated by Bush many years ago. Instead, you had me fighting against a bunch of fvcking corrupt goat herders who take your millions in aid while decapitating girls for tempting the men who raped them.

FACT: for years our own intelligence, even mainstream and foreign media, has repeatedly said that Al Qeada (you know, the guys that actually attacked us) has been reduced to almost nothing in Afghanistan. We are battling the Taliban...a bunch of freaking goat herders who want to bring their country back to the stone age. Our soldiers are dying fighting some backwoods mountain men who would no more attack us, and care less about us, than those slant eyes from Vietnam that were going to ruin America in the 60s and 70s.

Dispute that with facts, kleanboy.

You lied about wanting to get out of Iraq...You actually wanted our troops to stay, despite your promises to people like me and the rest of the Amrican people. Luckily, the Iraq goverment shut down your plan to continue American presence in order to control and export their oil. Now you are trying to extend the American withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan...over protests from the Afghan government...despite telling your fellow Americans that you'd get us out of there. Nope, you want us to stay because of the precious minerals in that country. Our blood for your corporate friends' profits.

FACT: Obama wanted the US ground forces to stay in Iraq. Yup. Iraq told him to go poind sand because Obama wanted to give our soliders immunity from prosecution. So, Obama promised Americans that he'd withdraw our troops, but he was actually trying to negotiate to stay. That is a FACT. Now, you tell me why Obama wanted our troops to stay (hint, it was the same reason our troops went in and stayed in the first place).

FACT: Obama says he is pulling out of Afghanistan. FACT...he is trying to get American troops to stay after 2014. FACT, FACT, FACT. Do yourself a favor and actually read...he's arguing with Karsi and the Afghan government. Then, read about how our military boys are helping research and locate billions of dollars worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan and how Obama was upset that Karsi signed agreements with the Chinese.

You, are a lying, greedy sack of shvt.

FACTS: Gitmo is still open. Transparent government? I could go on, but you know the drill. Fall in line behind your brother...and ignore the facts that he is Obushma.

[mrklean]

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution, but don't let facts get in the way.

They voted on a LIE!!! told by BUSH

[mrklean]

TOTAL BULLSHYT

The only bullshvt is the stuff filling inside you and blocking your brown eyes from wanting to see the truth.

Let's review:

1,560 soldiers and Marines who died in Afghanistan...heck, only 630 of us died there under Bush.

FACT: check, the stats...they may be off a couple kids one way or the other, but FAR MORE soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush. Added FACT: we got Bin Laden well over a year ago...and we've lsot several hundred more troops since Obama's "Mission Accomplished".

I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Those forces were defeated by Bush many years ago. Instead, you had me fighting against a bunch of fvcking corrupt goat herders who take your millions in aid while decapitating girls for tempting the men who raped them.

FACT: for years our own intelligence, even mainstream and foreign media, has repeatedly said that Al Qeada (you know, the guys that actually attacked us) has been reduced to almost nothing in Afghanistan. We are battling the Taliban...a bunch of freaking goat herders who want to bring their country back to the stone age. Our soldiers are dying fighting some backwoods mountain men who would no more attack us, and care less about us, than those slant eyes from Vietnam that were going to ruin America in the 60s and 70s.

Dispute that with facts, kleanboy.

You lied about wanting to get out of Iraq...You actually wanted our troops to stay, despite your promises to people like me and the rest of the Amrican people. Luckily, the Iraq goverment shut down your plan to continue American presence in order to control and export their oil. Now you are trying to extend the American withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan...over protests from the Afghan government...despite telling your fellow Americans that you'd get us out of there. Nope, you want us to stay because of the precious minerals in that country. Our blood for your corporate friends' profits.

FACT: Obama wanted the US ground forces to stay in Iraq. Yup. Iraq told him to go poind sand because Obama wanted to give our soliders immunity from prosecution. So, Obama promised Americans that he'd withdraw our troops, but he was actually trying to negotiate to stay. That is a FACT. Now, you tell me why Obama wanted our troops to stay (hint, it was the same reason our troops went in and stayed in the first place).

FACT: Obama says he is pulling out of Afghanistan. FACT...he is trying to get American troops to stay after 2014. FACT, FACT, FACT. Do yourself a favor and actually read...he's arguing with Karsi and the Afghan government. Then, read about how our military boys are helping research and locate billions of dollars worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan and how Obama was upset that Karsi signed agreements with the Chinese.

You, are a lying, greedy sack of shvt.

FACTS: Gitmo is still open. Transparent government? I could go on, but you know the drill. Fall in line behind your brother...and ignore the facts that he is Obushma.

I dont have Brown Eyes

[ASUG8]

58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq resolution, but don't let facts get in the way.

They voted on a LIE!!! told by BUSH

A lie that Clinton seemed to also believe in 1998.

[UNI88]

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Clucker and Kleany. Like Kleany, I believe that the Bush administration neo-cons mislead Congress and the public in order to further their own agenda and invade Iraq. Like Clucker, I agree that Obama, despite his campaign promises to the contrary, continued much of the neo-con military policy by keeping Gitmo open, trying to maintain the US presence in Iraq, etc. Cluck's characterization of Obama as Obushma is spot on.

[mrklean]

They voted on a LIE!!! told by BUSH

A lie that Clinton seemed to also believe in 1998.

Who the Hell belived that crap??? Ohh the Republican Party.................

[ASUG8]

A lie that Clinton seemed to also believe in 1998.

Who the Hell belived that crap??? Ohh the Republican Party.................

Clinton pulled the trigger on 75 tomahawks.

[Cap'n Cat]

Nah...there's a new cowboy in town and Obama is intent on getting even more of our people killed. We're arming Syrian rebels...yes we are. And where do you think those arms will go after some Anti-US Syrians get bored with killing each other? Isreal? Yup. US bases around the globe? Yup.

The funny thing is that Obama wants to limit assault rifles for Americans yet he's spreading weapons that will be killing our people around the world.

Here's a good read about Obama's view on defining terrorism and defining the bad guys...D1B should take notes.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchan ... raq-border" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"So it's the US position that looks strange. It spent billions of dollars and the lives of nearly 4,500 soldiers in Iraq, fighting to put down a Sunni insurgency that was described as a grave threat to American interests. Today, the US government policy is assisting a Sunni insurgency in Syria that is not only similar in character to the one put down in Iraq, but has surviving Iraqi veterans of the war serving in it. The ISI’s core strength is in Anbar Province (these folks fought ferocious pitched battles against the US in Fallujah in 2004 and 2005), and its members have strong family and tribal ties along the Euphrates river into Syria.

The US knows this, and is trying to find a way to reassure countries like Iraq that Sunni Islamists will not dominate Syria if Assad is defeated. After all, Iraq may be helping Assad a little bit, but it could do a lot more if its alarm levels rise. In essence, the US is pursuing a policy that's harmful to Iraqi interests, can potentially empower people that are hostile to both Iraqi and US interests, and is trying to use language to smooth all this over.

Which led Nuland into a very odd, strained statement. She appeared to define terrorism as killing anyone not in the middle of an all-out battle. "We’ve been pretty clear about calling out attacks against folks who are not in the middle of a firefight all the way through this from both sides," she said. By this definition, every drone assassination carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations has been terrorism, as have the frequent tactics of bombing or ambushing insurgents at home, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's an absurd definition of terrorism. Usually governments say absurd things when the policy being discussed is filled with contradictions."

Obushma!

Filed under Preaching to the Choir.