When a terrorist state is, finally, created because of our feckless retreat from the Middle East, the "debate" will move from mere words, to a reality that will be impossible to combat without a military conflict. Soon, some of us will be able to say, "We told you so."

45 share
<<<  ISIL  

Editor’s notes:  The following from the non-professional,  Jen Psaki,  is a perfect example of the devolution having taken place within our State Department and the DOD.  Keep in mind that Iraq asked for air surveillance in support of their troops,  and the Obama Administration refused.  With that as a reference,  the following is so much Bullshittal.  In five years and with the fewest casualties in American wartime history,  our war in Iraq gave that country freedom from the Islamic killers invading their country,  free elections,  and a more humane form of governance.  Obama and his Progressive “peaceniks’’ cabal,  have taken a victorious war effort per his 14 criterion defining “victory,”  deserted that effort altogether,  and,  in so doing,  set the stage for the take-over of Iraq by the worst of the terrorist network.  Iraq is quickly becoming a terrorist state and staging region for the goal of world domination by the Islamic Radicals threatening world peace and stability.  To think that Obama’s retreat from the world’s stage,  militarily speaking,  will not and does not have a direct and existential effect on our country,  boggles the mind.   It is a rule of fact:  One does not survive an invasion of bullies by hiding in a closet.  I have highlighted (in red) those portions of the following,  unaccompanied with substantive and military support.  In other words,  I have highlighted the words only,  phony concern,  of this Administration  -  words that will have no impact, in our battle against terror. 

You are about to read a rhetorical “waste of time.”  Enjoy. 

******

U.S. Condemns ISIL Assault on Mosul

June 10, 2014

Press Statement

Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC

The United States is deeply concerned about the events that have transpired in Mosul over the last 48 hours where elements of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISIL) have taken over significant parts of the city. The situation remains extremely serious. Senior U.S. officials in both Washington and Baghdad are tracking events closely in coordination with the Government of Iraq, as well as Iraqi leaders from across the political spectrum including the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), and support a strong, coordinated response to push back against this aggression. We also commend efforts by the KRG to respond to the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The United States will provide all appropriate assistance to the Government of Iraq under the Strategic Framework Agreement to help ensure that these efforts succeed.

ISIL continues to gain strength from the situation in Syria, from which it transfers recruits, sophisticated munitions, and resources to the fight in Iraq. It should be clear that ISIL is not only a threat to the stability of Iraq, but a threat to the entire region. This growing threat exemplifies the need for Iraqis from all communities to work together to confront this common enemy and isolate these militant groups from the broader population.

The United States stands with the Iraqi people and the people of Ninewa and Anbar now confronting this urgent threat. We will continue to work closely with Iraqi political and security leaders on a holistic approach to diminish ISIL’s capacity and ability to operate within Iraq’s borders. Our assistance enables Iraq to combat ISIL on the front lines, where hundreds of Iraqi security force personnel have been killed and injured in that fight this year.


at

7 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 12, 2014 at 11:02 AM

    Saddam was a bastard, but he was OUR bastard. He kept Iran in check and the Muslim fundamentalists from taking over. How does your Bush war in Iraq look now? Now, the Muslim theocracy is gaining ground due to Bush's belligerent, wasteful, expensive and poorly planned attack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John SmithsonJune 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM

    You should have asked your question, six years ago. At that time, it looked damned good. It is Obama's retreat from the region that should be questioned. A coward's approach to a military victory in a dynamic circumstance, is what is being judged, at this time. You think the intervening years (the Obama years) play no role in what is happening in and to Iraq?!!! Good grief, man, You are more the Utopian Theorist than I have supposed.

    Think about what you are saying. If all (in Iraq) this is Bush's fault, then Obama's last (nearly) six years have been of absolutely no consequence . . . . . . . exactly my point. You can't have it both ways, blaming Bush AND pretending that Obama's Middle East "policies" are relevant and meaningful, at the same time. "Its all Bush's fault" is an admission that the Obama policy is feckless to its core, or the "Bush Era" would have already been correct, or, AT LEAST, mitigated to some degree. When you whine about Bush, you declare the inane nature of the Obama policy/theory. Sooo, keep blaming Bush; you are making my point about Obama, on each occasion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John SmithsonJune 12, 2014 at 11:36 AM

    Also, understand that Saddam was not Bush's bastard. Over generalizing to make a point, is hardly, a sound or reasonable polemic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John SmithsonJune 12, 2014 at 11:49 AM

    One more point: Saddam was evolving into THE center of fiance for the terrorist cabal threatening the Middle East and the world, paying $25,000 per suicide attack, and working to become the banking concern of international terror --- all this being the very opposite to your thinking that Saddam was, incredibly, good for the region and his country, in particular. Laughably wrong, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. John SmithsonJune 12, 2014 at 12:20 PM

    Yet, another "final" point. Obama abandoned Iraq in toto, two and half years ago. None of what is happening in that country today, in terms of successes by outside terror attacks per Syria and the internal invasion of Iraq, was happening back then . . . . none of it. So how is this intervening period of time, Bush's fault. We left Iraq in relative peace, ACCORDING TO OBAMA, and now, more than two years later, our desertion of that nation is beginning to reap its own rewards.

    Understand this: what is happening in Iraq is NOT the product of a civil war. The ISIL is a collective of outside forces, headed by the most dangerous terrorist of our time, working, specifically, to capture and create a military Islamic state. When we abandoned Iraq and Afghanistan, as we are doing, we effectively handed over that region to the Jihadist. To argue that we will not be sorely effected by this stupidity (on our part), is to argue the insanely illogical.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJune 12, 2014 at 1:30 PM

    Rumsfeld, as an envoy under Reagan, armed Saddam with chemical weapons.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html

    I think we can agree that Muslim fundamentalism is the most dangerous driving force of threat against the US. Saddam was an enemy of Muslim fundamentalists and was easily 'bought off'.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John SmithsonJune 12, 2014 at 2:22 PM

    Again, Saddam was not Bush's creation. While Saddam was an enemy of theocratic Islamic rule, he was not an enemy to Islamic Jihad. He encouraged it and funded it. after all, he and they, had the same enemy.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)