Status of Forces Agreement ~ Iraq Update

Smack Down Galore!

(Above Video) The caller notes that the narrative is that the Islamic State would have still come to power even if we kept troops in Iraq. Which is true, they would have still come to existence, in Syria. But Iraq would not have lost any cities or territories if we still had a presence in Iraq. The caller mentioned a force of 10,000 troops, it would have been closer to 30,000 troops. And having a base of operations in country would have allowed the administration to deal more effectively with the Islamic State in Syria (flying sorties, and supporting quick reaction [spec-ops] units activity), and the like.

(Above Video) Megyn Kelly Destroys Jen Psaki who can’t get off talking points.

(Above Video) Larry Elder (and Paul Bremer) dismantle older as well as new mantras flying around via our friends on the left. In the interview that is the centerpiece of the segment[s] here via Larry Elder, Erin “Monkey” Burnett gets all of her talking points smacked down. The only thing Miss Burnett accomplished was showing her bias/sarcasm well.

Here Bremer educates Erin with facts she knew, but refuses to deploy in her logic because it would ruin her defense of her Master Obama, “The planning in 2011, leaked very heavily from the Pentagon and the White House was to keep 20 to 30 thousand troops after 2011, the White House leaked that it wanted to only keep 3,000 troops, then they said to al-Maliki not only do we want a Status of Forces Agreement but you have to get it through your Parliament. So for the first time, to my knowledge, since 1945, we have 84 SOFA agreements around the world, we were telling the host government how to they proceed in approving that Status of Forces Agreement. That put al-Maliki in an impossible situation.”

(Read more)


Bombs Over Erbil


Obama is SUCH a joke! HotAir has this:

….A dandy little edit here by the Free Beacon, via Ace. I know I’ve linked it before but the piece you want to read as accompaniment is Iraq hawk turned dove Peter Beinart lamenting all the ways Obama screwed up post-Bush American policy in the country. O wants you to believe at the end of the video here that he pushed hard to keep a residual American force inside Iraq for counterterrorism (i.e. counter-ISIS) operations but it’s simply not true. He didn’t push hard for it; when Maliki initially resisted his demand that U.S. troops be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, O took that as his cue to pull everyone out. And that wasn’t the only time he indulged Maliki’s dumbest impulses. The story of the U.S. vis-a-vis Iraq after 2009, writes Beinart, is a story of disinterest and disengagement:

The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.

On December 12, 2011, just days before the final U.S. troops departed Iraq, Maliki visited the White House. According to Nasr, he told Obama that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, an Iraqiya leader and the highest-ranking Sunni in his government, supported terrorism. Maliki, argues Nasr, was testing Obama, probing to see how the U.S. would react if he began cleansing his government of Sunnis. Obama replied that it was a domestic Iraqi affair. After the meeting, Nasr claims, Maliki told aides, “See! The Americans don’t care.”

In public remarks after the meeting, Obama praised Maliki for leading “Iraq’s most inclusive government yet.” Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq, another Sunni, told CNN he was “shocked” by the president’s comments. “There will be a day,” he predicted, “whereby the Americans will realize that they were deceived by al-Maliki … and they will regret that.”

And now the day has come. Remember that the next time O walks out to the podium and acts indignant about Maliki clinging to power.

One more bit, this from Dexter Filkins, on just how much of a fight O put up in demanding a residual troop presence:

President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” Jeffrey told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said…

(read more)


(Still the Lynn University campus debate via WaPo)

  • Romney: “With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,”
  • Obama: “That’s not true,”
  • Romney: “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?”
  • Obama: “No,” … “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

Some other things Mitt got right and “O” didn’t:

A Four-Way Race for President Is Possible

Michael Medved reads from and discusses Jonah Goldberg’s article in the National Review, “A Four-Way Race for President Is Possible.” I am hopeful this is how it will shake out. Which is why I have held my endorsement until 8-1-2016 (http://cfaparty.org/endorsement-8-1-16/).

This will be a very interesting couple of months to say the least!


For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to visit: http://www.michaelmedved.com/

The Morning Answer on the GOP Rift

The Morning Answer Crew discusses the rift in the Republican Party… visa~vis the non-endorsement by leading Republicans. From Paul Ryan to the Bushes. Talk of those who are calling for support as well are included in the discussion, like Mike Huckabee and Bill Bennett. I am one who thinks along the lines of Paul Ryan that while we don’t always get the ideal… “The Donald” is not even near the minimum standards of the ideal. He is, as Ben Shapiro puts it, the farthest left leaning person to EVER be the presumptive nominee.

For articles discussing the reasons NOT to vote for Donald Trump, see The Constitutional Federalists of America’s posts and article/audio.

For more clear and humorous exchanges like this, go to AM870 The Answer.

Hillary ~ The Bully (Larry Elder)

Larry Elder notes Hillary Clinton’s past involvement in covering up [actively] her husband’s indiscretions. With threats and intimidation. If, Romney is always a bully and not fit for office… is the same true of Hillary? See the previous detailed explanation of the “Nuts and Sluts” strategy by Larry Elder: https://youtu.be/IGVyIRCp-4s

Cultural Appropriation Alert: Honkeys Cannot Have Dreadlocks

To me, this is an example of the left eating itself. This hippie-dippie kid is probably left-wing, and this BLM styled activist is a leftist… and one is telling the other to groom themselves a certain way. I guess she is an employee of the university, but we will soon (like Iran) have a dress code police. Something Walter Williams coined as “lifestyle Nazis” (one and two). The positive thing that may come out of these types of experiences is that we will get more Republican voters as they leave the crazy left.

People were in a tizzy over Mitt Romney’s forced haircut on a fellow student. The Left said this prank was enough to disqualify him from the Presidency. Yet, here, we see the Left wanting to forcefully cut hair due to “cultural appropriation.” Breitbart notes:

The video begins with the woman threatening the man by asking her friend whether he has a pair of scissors.

An argument ensues as the student insists on his right to have dreadlocks regardless of the style’s cultural origins.

“You’re saying I can’t have this hairstyle because of your culture? Why?” asks the student.

“Because it’s my culture,” responds the student.

The woman proceeds to grab him as he begins to walk away from the situation. When the white student pushes back, she accuses the man of putting his hands on her….

Ethics of the Left Versus Biblical Ethics (Peas and Roses)

“When a man ceases to believe in God he does not believe in nothing, he believes almost in anything.” ~ G. K. Chesterton

This is an old story, but I wanted to get it onto my site for reference. It comes from Daily Caller’s Wesley J. Smith, nd is the forefront of vegan/vegetarian “ethics.”

Just when you thought things could not get any weirder: Last Sunday, The New York Times of course! — ran a piece in its Sunday opinion section by a university professor — of course! — claiming that it is unethical to eat certain plants. [The piece is entitled, “If Peas Can Talk, Should We Eat Them?“]

According to Michael Marder, recent discoveries show that peas communicate with each other through their root systems and soil. Of course, being plants, pea “communication” doesn’t involve the least level of sentience, not to mention rationality. It is a purely chemical response to environmental stimuli.

But should pea chemical communication elevate the moral value of peas? Yes, according to Marder (my emphasis):

When it comes to a plant, it turns out to be not only a what but also a who — an agent in its milieu, with its own intrinsic value or version of the good. Inquiring into justifications for consuming vegetal beings thus reconceived, we reach one of the final frontiers of dietary ethics.

Good grief. Plants aren’t “beings” and “who” equates to personhood. But plants don’t have any “version of the good — or for that matter, the bad: They are plants!

Marder then claims that plant sophistication means we should not eat them unless they live for several growing seasons:

The “renewable” aspects of perennial plants may be accepted by humans as a gift of vegetal being and integrated into their diets. But it would be harder to justify the cultivation of peas and other annual plants, the entire being of which humans devote to externally imposed ends.

I hate to repeat myself, but good grief! People are starving in the world and Marder worries about the ethics of eating peas and carrots! Worse, the piece runs with all due respect in the Sunday opinion section of the nation’s Paper of Record! (Yes, I’m yelling.)

…read it all and try not to yell!

In another article Wesley J. Smith in National Review mentions this new frontier of ethics in speaking about the 20123 elections, and Romney’s father’s “MURDEROUS” heart!

I just saw a funny Tweet from @jimnorton, in which he “condemns” Mitt Romney’s father for “murdering roses” when he placed one on his wife’s bedstand every night. (Romney scored emotionally in last night’s speech when he recalled that his mother found out his father had died because the rose was missing.) Thing is, Norton’s jibe is not quite as off the wall as some might think. Switzerland has, for instance, placed the “dignity” of individual plants in its constitution. The government then asked a big brained bioethics commission to explain why individual plants have dignity (they share molecular material with us), and the commission gave an example of a terrible immoral action. From my Weekly Standard column, “The Scream of the Asparagus:”

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer’s herd–the report doesn’t say). But then, while walking home, he casually “decapitates” some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel decries this act as immoral, though its members can’t agree why. The report states, opaquely: At this point it remains unclear whether this action is condemned because it expresses a particular moral stance of the farmer toward other organisms or because something bad is being done to the flowers themselves.

So, according to this crowd, George Romney apparently did murder roses–worse, put out a contract for daily rosicide!

After referencing the other article about peas that he [Smith] wrote, he ends with this:

Then there is the growing “nature rights” movement. My point is that @jimnorton thought he was being funny–and he was. But some take such nonsense seriously. That’s what happens when you reject human exceptionalism. You go–pardon the animalism–nuts!

…read it all…

Some 2012 Election Narratives About Romney Dismantled

Generosity = True Character!

BIDEN (Politico):

When the Obama campaign released past tax returns for Biden in 2008, it was revealed that the Bidens donated just $3,690 to charity over 10 years — an average of $369 a year.

OBAMA (WaPo):

♦ 2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)

♦ 2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)

♦ 2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)

♦ 2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)

The slightly longer video/audio of the below can be found here… I cut out the Benghazi commentary for this posting. This was originally uploaded to my MRCTV account in September 26, 2012:

From Video Description:

Larry Elder leads off with small talk about Hollywood’s silence on censorship, he plays SNL’s skit about undecided voters (video included)…. Then “The Sage” settles into his forte… stats. Quoting liberal sources he dissects Jonathan Karl’s ABC report (video included) and the general lunacy of the legacy media in stacking the deck against Romney. Long, but worth listening to.

For stories related to this report from Jonathan, see NewsBusters:

  1. ABC’s Karl Dissembles on Romney’s Tax Rate, But NBC Points Out He Pays Higher Percent Than Middle Class
  2. Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative

For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/

Obama’s Defense Secretary/CIA Director, Leon Panetta: Iraq Withdrawal

Former Obama Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta told CBS News that some U.S. troops should have remained in Iraq. Panetta spoke with Scott Pelley in a segment that aired Friday.

✿ Scott Pelley: Were you confident in that moment that pulling out was the right thing to do?

✿ Leon Panetta: No, I wasn’t. I really, I really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq.

But, Barack Obama overruled Panetta and withdrew all troops from Iraq in 2012 – one of the biggest foreign policy errors in US history.


 

So what do we have so far in foreign affairs? So far we have Bush warning about pulling troops out of Iraq too soon and its disastrous effects; Sen. John McCain also said this troop withdrawal was bad mojo; Glenn Beck warning of ISIS years ago; Obama ridding himself of senior military staff that were involved in Iraqi success; Mitt Romney said it was counter to his plan in the 2012 election debates to pull troops from Iraq; Russia is now buzzing Alaska regularly with it’s nuclear bombers, as well as Europe — but both Romney AND Palin warned of Russia while Obama joked that the 80’s called and want their foreign policy back; Romney was right on Syria; from Politifact’s “Lie of the Year” when Romeny said Jeep was going to China (he was right), to Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels” ~ time-and-time again the Obama admin’s/Democrats direction for the country has been shown to be wrong, misguided, and dangerous. When will people get it?