Skip to main content

View Diary: Which 44 Democrats Want Another Iraq War? (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have no idea why people voted as they did (10+ / 0-)

    but I do not believe that Tammy Duckworth could be described as among those who "...long for another Iraq War..."

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 04:07:07 AM PDT

    •  Well, then, she should vote that way. n/t (31+ / 0-)

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 05:51:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's a hint or two there (32+ / 0-)

      Steny Hoyer and Steve Israel voted against all of them.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz voted against one, but not the other two (did she leave the chamber?)

      There's definitely a pro-war caucus within the Democratic party, and it has too much power.  The party's trying to anoint one of their number the next presidential candidate, in fact.

      At least Pelosi isn't on the lists.

      I stand with triv33. Shame on her attackers.

      by Dallasdoc on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 05:54:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nor do I, but... (3+ / 0-)

      I agree with you that,
      1. Voting against these amendments is not voting for war,
      2. Voting for a narrowly drafted approval of force would not require the amendments to the bill.

      That said, Rachel Maddow is correct that Congress has been running away from its war making power for the last six years, at least. When Democrats controlled both houses, there were enough in leadership to at least call for Congressional power over military force. Once the GOP got in charge of the House and the Senate ceased to function, Democrats hadn't the power, and the GOP didn't want it.

      The first list, of 22, is the usual list of people like John Barrow -- about whom someone will be along shortly to say that "he's the best you can ever get from that place" (and yet, mysteriously, we never have a primary to find out) -- who are only occasionally with the Party.

      "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

      by The Geogre on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:05:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Except for Brad Sherman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc

        who is regarded as a strong liberal, excepting a few specific issues. He is my Congress critter, and I'll be expressing my annoyance to his office. I'm curious, though, as to why he is on the first two lists, but not the third.

        Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've seen him vote this way. Sad face.

        "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

        by CelticOm on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:43:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well my guess is that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rithmck, amyzex

      since this is only about the availability of funds and they have a President they trust in charge of military operations, a No vote basically takes all power to react to changing conditions away from the President.  IF GWB were in office I'd be screaming for this kind of action but let's look at scenarios that could possibly erupt in Iraq even if Obama takes the most hands-off approach of any President in our lifetimes.  

      There is a massive ethnic cleansing by whatever group gains control.  Holocaust levels.  

      There is a massive assault on the US Embassy.  

      ISIS takes over, gets wealthy and powerful from theft and oil revenues and goes into a full on assault of the Turks spilling over into Turkey.  

      There are lots of nightmare scenarios that could erupt.  I'd prefer we stay out of them but we do not want to become a full on isolationist nation either.  If there's a horrific bloodbath that we could legitimately prevent and the people of the region are pleading with us to do so (and those conditions are rare) a Democrat that has tied our hands with votes like this would be extremely vulnerable at the polls.  If it resulted in Republicans gaining strength, the long term blowback could be far worse.

      •  since this is only about the availability of funds (5+ / 0-)

        as you say, and none of the below comes cheap, not to mention how expensive those "bombs" are.......

        The Associated Press has published a list of US military assets near Iraq. They include:

        • Six warships in the Persian Gulf, including the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, a cruiser, three destroyers and the amphibious transport ship the USS Mesa Verde, which is carrying about 550 Marines and five V-22 Osprey hybrid aircraft.

        • About 5,000 U.S. soldiers across the border in Kuwait, as part of a routine rotational presence. They include the 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, a combat aviation brigade and other support troops.

        • Air Force aircraft capable of a full range of missions positioned within range of Iraq. According to Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James they include F-15E, F-16 and F-22 fighters; B-1 bombers, C-130 cargo planes and A-10 attack jets.

        • Intelligence gathering and surveillance assets, including drones, in the region.
        ------

        President Obama said the US would build up its military assets in the region. Yesterday we published an AP-compiled list of those assets, mentioning six warships in the Persian Gulf and about 5,000 U.S. soldiers across the border in Kuwait.

        That list did not capture the number of troops as just described by an unnamed US official to the New York Times: More than 30,000 US troops in the Iraq region at sea and ashore, US official says.
        — Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 19, 2014

        http://www.theguardian.com/...

        _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

        by allenjo on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:26:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for your courage in posting this. (4+ / 0-)

        It is not popular on this site to point out the grim reality of the ISIS invasion.

        I was an early and passionate protestor of both the Bush fake 2000 election and the Bush Iraq War.

        I protested the Bush Iraq War because I cared both for Americans and for the many more Iraqis who would die.

        I still care for both.

        I'm not for more US war in Iraq.

        But it is wrong to ignore the current slaughter in Iraq. And it's wrong for one's only response to that slaughter to be stating over and over again infinite times that the US should not re-invade.

        OK. Let's assume no more US Iraq War. What should happen in Iraq? By what means?

        It is no longer popular to care. And that's exactly why we should continue to do so.

        •  Is the US to be the only country to care? (5+ / 0-)
          But it is wrong to ignore the current slaughter in Iraq. And it's wrong for one's only response to that slaughter to be stating over and over again infinite times that the US should not re-invade.

          OK. Let's assume no more US Iraq War. What should happen in Iraq? By what means?

          It should not be up to the US, the self-appointed global police force.

          Assume there was no US, (that this country was totally bankrupt and could borrow no more funds) what should be done?

          _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

          by allenjo on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:33:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Every human being should care about all others. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CelticOm, artmartin

            Then the question becomes, which organizations have the power to shape a better Iraq and how?

            The answer is not always and only the US.

            But a more lively discussion of what other entities could help Iraq is missing, and would be welcome.

            Sadly, we all have to work to overcome our very human capacity for ignoring the suffering of others.

            •  The answer is the Iraqi people (5+ / 0-)

              I am a strong believer in self-determination.  Only the Iraqi people have the power to shape a better Iraq.  Get out of their way.  

              I don't go much for this caring stuff because I tend to believe we have a hard enough time caring for our friends and neighbors and when we get all distracted with pretending to care about folks we'll never see and never know thousands of miles away we tend to forget the friends and neighbors.  

              •  Some of us do "go much for this caring stuff". (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CelticOm, artmartin

                ISIS is not "the Iraqi people". They are largely non-Iraqi jihadi extremists who enjoy mass beheading civilians as policy. And posting images of the results on Twitter.

                "Get out of their way" = Slaughter away, psychopaths!

                Humans should care about all other humans. Near or far.

                We can't solve all problems always. But refusing to care about anyone outside one's own private circle means allowing any and all social evils to spread unchecked. I ain't down with that.

              •  we're all believers in self-determination (0+ / 0-)

                I have been against military involvement in the Mideast since the moment Daddy Bush began rattling sabers.  My two boys right now are 20 and 25 and had a draft ever come they'd have been prime cannon fodder.  We're in a mess Greenbell.  Black and white went out the window a long time ago and every issue is complicated.

                •  Of course it's complicated (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dallasdoc

                  It's always been complicated which is why the utterly clueless U S of A should have stayed the hell out of there.  Iraqis have to solve their own problems.  

                  How would we like 300 Iraq advisors landing here to tell us how to resolve the differences between the Waco Baptists and the San Francisco Unitarians?  Or maybe they could tell the Mayor of Chicago how to resolve gang warfare?  Maybe they could help out along the border and figure out what we do with those children in detention?  

                  Don't we have enough of our own problems that we cannot solve?  Who the hell do we think we are trying to solve theirs?

                  •  so now go back and read my comment (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    thanatokephaloides

                    again.  It was about the bill that authorized funding not about actually committing troops.  The black and white you want doesn't keep troops out because if horrors come out of some place and the American voters get outraged enough, demand action, throw Democrats out of office, we'll be in more wars than you can shake a stick at.  

                    I'm talking about political reality for these legislators.  While you might believe cutting off all funding for Mideast operations will keep us out of foreign entanglements, my contention is that it could do exactly the opposite.  So let's say the Dems stand strong and vote to cut funding and something horrendous happens.  The political fallout could swing the pendulum back to the Republicans and we'd find ourselves worse than we are now.  

                    I DON'T WANT US TO GO BACK INTO IRAQ.  Am I making myself clear here?  It's not fucking black and white.  I want our money spent at home but you and I have fundamental differences on the political reality required to get that.  You don't change things overnight.  You take one step at a time, make incremental change, lose some battles, come back to fight another day in order to change the huge political and social momentum of the country.

                    •  I couldn't agree more (0+ / 0-)

                      Thanks for bringing out this side of the discussion.  I looked at the list and found my Congresswoman voted against the second two amendments and understood that she most likely needs to do that to retain her seat in our heavily red state.  And I think it was the best move she could make under the circumstances.

                      I will be there again this Saturday supporting her in her phone bank.  She's in for a tough fight, she's a freshman who just barely squeaked into her first term.

                      Still trying to figure it all out

                      by CindyV on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 10:06:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  We broke it. And we broke the Iraqi people. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc

                No, it wasn't sunshine and roses before we started our meddling, but the expectation that the Iraqi people should simply save themselves after what we did to them is really starting to get on my nerves.

                It bothers me when I see comments here like "Why should we care?" or, from a poster on another thread, "F*** Iraq." We should care because we are citizens of a country that destroyed a lot of lives for no reason, both here and in Iraq.

                It certainly wasn't the doing of those populating this site. But we made a complete mess of that country, and although I don't believe any good can come of further military involvement on our part, we also cannot abdicate the responsibility we bear.

                It's a complicated mess, and there is no silver bullet cure. I'm just thankful to have a president who doesn't respond as if there is.

                "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

                by CelticOm on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:38:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  what other entities is a question that will not (5+ / 0-)

              be answered now as the US always does step up. The point will come when the US no longer will be able to pay for all its military interventions around the world. So I imagine that the question of other entities will have to
              wait until then.

              Why would other countries step up to send their troops, warships, fighter jets, missiles, bombs, etc. when all they have to do is sit back and let the US do it, as is now happening once again?

              _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

              by allenjo on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:17:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  US so far refuses significant Iraqi commitment. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                artmartin

                So since the US will not intervene, what then?

                The question is upon us now.

                There's a ton of talk about what, if anything, other entities will do -- Maliki, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the EU, the UN, NATO.

                It's not necessarily a question of invasion and occupation. Could diplomacy, aid, or threats by these other groups end ISIS slaughter? Let's hope a global leader finds a solution to help get Iraq back on a track toward lasting peace.

                •  significant as in...... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, artmartin, schumann, Dallasdoc

                  manned and unmanned fighter jets flying over Iraq 24 hours per day, six warships in the Persian Gulf and about 5,000 U.S. soldiers across the border in Kuwait - and more than 30,000 US troops in the Iraq region at sea and ashore

                   - to me, Rithmck, that is not insignificant.

                  US so far refuses significant Iraqi commitment.
                  So where are all the other countries and their warships, fighter jets, troops?

                  Standing down because the US stood up.

                  _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

                  by allenjo on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:43:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  US "standby" forces aren't doing anything. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    artmartin

                    They're just standing by.

                    Obama has stated and repeated, no US ground troops in Iraq.

                    If you are advocating that Obama twist arms to the UN, EU, or other nations to take the baton, then call on him to do so.

                    Is that policy likely to turn ISIS back? How does it better Iraq for any nation's warships to circle around aimlessly nearby?

                    •  it is not up to the US (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dallasdoc
                      If you are advocating that Obama twist arms to the UN, EU, or other nations to take the baton, then call on him to do so.
                      Not  up to Obama, nor up to the US.

                      Why make more enemies, why make the US any more of a target to the terrorists?

                      Our aim always is to protect US interests, and I would hope that those we elect to serve, would put Americans, ordinary average Americans,  in the top category of US interests.

                      An American Attack on ISIS in Iraq Could Mean Retaliation Back Home

                      For the moment, the militant group has focused on expanding its reach in Syria and Iraq. But U.S. attacks could bring its gaze Westward, and with thousands of foreign jihadis among its ranks, it has the ability to exact revenge.

                      _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

                      by allenjo on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:36:36 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So you're back squarely to "I don't care". (0+ / 0-)

                        That's not good enough for me.

                        ISIS is an extremist jihadi organization that has already publicly stated an ambition to stage terrorist attacks in the West. It doesn't matter if we bomb them or work against them. They do not lack motivation, only the capacity. For now.

                        But as a moral human being, that is secondary to me. What I see is Iraqi civilians being slaughtered and displaced by raving lunatics. To the tune of 1.5 million who have fled.

                        Whatever Obama and all other powers and organizations can do to stop the killing and build peace is welcome.

                        I do care. Every empathetic human being should.

                        •  Well said (0+ / 0-)

                          Looks like we agree on this.  I'm not eager to see us get back into Iraq.  But I think we need to do whatever we can to curtail the bloodshed and spreading power of ISIS.

                          How we do that is really the tricky part.  The fact that Kerry was in Iraq this weekend is a sign they are trying to sort that out.  So, for now, I'm willing to trust that our leaders are working on a solution to a very messy problem.

                          Still trying to figure it all out

                          by CindyV on Mon Jun 23, 2014 at 10:11:30 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  If the US had never existed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            artmartin, schumann

            the Ottoman Empire still would and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

            The Stars and Bars and the red swastika banner are both offerings to the same barbaric god.

            by amyzex on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:31:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Of course we shouldn't be the only (0+ / 0-)

            ones to care but clearly we are the ones most capable of posing an immediate threat as a global option.  I'd prefer that not be the case but we're the big boys on the block.

            There is power in having power and NOT using it.

        •  OK, try educating yourself (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          schumann, Dallasdoc
          But it is wrong to ignore the current slaughter in Iraq. And it's wrong for one's only response to that slaughter to be stating over and over again infinite times that the US should not re-invade.
          I mean that sincerely.  Where do you get your info? The slaughter of Sunnis has been going on in Iraq for 6 years under Obama. Have you forgotten 8 years of starvation and bombing under Clinton? The D Party has just been the left arm of the ruling War Party for 23 years in regards to Iraq.

          http://www.pdamerica.org/...

          •  All of that information is well known. (0+ / 0-)

            The events of the last 10 days differ substantially from the last 6 years' norm.

            The question now is, if the US will not act, what will happen?

            And as I've stated and re-stated, what other forces should act and how?

            •  Have you considered self determination? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dallasdoc

              We can't even manage our own country.

              Let's start here then IF we get it together, other Countries will be pleading to become the 51st State.

              •  ISIS is an invading jihadi force. (0+ / 0-)

                They are not Iraqis self-determining anything.

                They are murdering foreign extremists funded by Saudi and Qatari royalty.

                Why should they get to determine Iraq's future?

                If you truly want to ignore all humanity, your plan is thus to default on our debt and cancel all world trade?

                Yeah, didn't think so.

                •  You should educate yourself concerning ISIS (0+ / 0-)

                  Right now you are parroting a wingnut warmonger.

                  They certainly are self determining….just like every country does. Start with a revolution, when enough are dead, the rest become exhausted and desire peace enough to actually embrace it for a time.

        •  Nowhere in my post did I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snwflk

          recommend taking any military action at all.  All I was trying to do was describe the possible POLITICAL rationale to legislators that have a proven track record of being against unnecessary war and violence making the vote they did.

          I don't know in the scenarios I listed or the ones you're pointing out if we should take any action but I believe that having a President that seems to be a chess player instead of a war monger, the risk of funding his OPTIONS (which are bargaining chips) is not a grave move.

        •  What should happen... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marty marty

          Maliki needs to go the way of Saddam Hussein for not bringing everyone into the "Iraq" tent. Yes, I mean hung  by his own "countrymen".  But this time for all the lives of Americans, and other nations, who died to bring them a better life (because we all know it wasn't really about weapons of mass destruction).  

          It's time for three separate countries.  Then we can buy oil from the southern country.  Let those people live in peace once and for all.  And personally, I stand behind the Kurds to have their own country and should be given as much leeway in deciding their border as payment for all the cruelty imposed upon them during Saddam Hussein's time in control and their abilities they have shown in bringing themselves back from the brink and building up their own region.

          In the alternative, we need to get all the women and children out and let the men of the "Middle East" have their religious wars until they kill themselves off.

          No more American lives, unless children and grandchildren of anyone who believes troops should be sent back into Iraq are required to enlist with orders to go specifically to Iraq  We can start with the Bushes and Clintons.

        •  Iraq is not my problem.They are religious nuts. (0+ / 0-)

          VPBiden suggested separation of the three ares as of Iraq,Kurd and the other two  four years ago. Naturally that did not happen. Too smart -easy maybe?
          Therefore  don't waste more men and money on the cesspool Jihadist could set up camp in Mexico 5000 miles closer to America with no problemwith theaid of drug,drugs should be legalized take away profit motive from it. and remove the danger of all of this.

      •  I couldn't agree less. (7+ / 0-)
        If there's a horrific bloodbath that we could legitimately prevent
        Prevent?  How?  The Iraqi army that we financed looks like that old joke about rifles for sale from the Italian army; "Never fired, and only dropped once".  News reports indicate ISIS is about 10,000 people.  Half a million people fled Mosul.  Why was there no resistance?  Hard to believe there was a shortage of weapons.

        This is not the Pottery Barn.  We damned sure broke it, but we don't own it.

        As for going back in, fuck that.

        P.S. That obscene Taj Mahal of an embassy in Iraq should be vacated.  Remove every one of the about 5,000 Americans there.  (5,000!)

        I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

        by tle on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:46:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the USA has a bad track record for "humanitarian" (7+ / 0-)

          interventions.

          USA "foreign policy" often has allies that are authoritarian despots, they're easier to bribe, when USA corporations want to get foreign resources and don't want to pay what those resources are worth. And MIC likes USA government taking USA taxpayer money to pay our MIC to ship weapons to tyrants. Tyrants often have to use up a lot of ordinance in their repression. MIC likes ordinance being used.

          The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

          by stargaze on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:33:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Tremendously unfair to civilian refugees who fled. (0+ / 0-)

          The half a million who fled Mosul were unarmed families.

          They couldn't do anything against jihadis armed to the teeth.

          1.5 million refugees fled the region. Not trained soldiers. Families. Refugees. What do you expect them to do? Run up to the invaders and get mowed down?

          Slamming the poor display by the Iraqi army by cracking tired jokes about European surrender monkeys? Are you trying to channel 2002 Dick Cheney?

          Yes, the Iraqi army failed, just as everyone said it would. Reports said about 30,000 soldiers turned and fled.

          No one is saying the USA can or should save everyone, but it's disrespectful to the dying to imply their deaths are because they personally just didn't resist hard enough.

          •  Well then, write your elected officials (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q, snoopydawg, schumann, Dallasdoc

            Tell them to have Obama quit supporting the ISIL.

            Friday, June 20, 2014 7:41 PM
            Report: US trained ISIL militants at secret Jordan base

            After training in Turkey, thousands of ISIL militants went to Iraq by way of Syria to occupy the northern lands.
            Members of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) that have been conducting mass killings in Iraq in past days were trained in 2012 by US instructors working at a secret base in Jordan, a new report says.
            According to a report by the WND, anonymous Jordanian officials said dozens of ISIL members were trained at the time as part of covert aid to the insurgents targeting the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
            The Jordanian officials said all ISIL members who received US training to fight in Syria were first vetted for any links to extremist groups like al-Qaeda.
            US, Turkey and Jordan have been running a training base for the militants in the Jordanian town of Safawi in the country’s northern desert region for the Syrian war, according to media reports.
            Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syria militants in Jordan.
            Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the US Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms.

            The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.
            The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid US plans to train a total of 1,200 militants in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.
            Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported last March that US trainers were aiding militants in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
            The Jordanian officials spoke to WND amid concern the sectarian violence in Iraq will spill over into their own country as well as into Syria.
            ISIL previously posted a video on YouTube threatening to move on Jordan and “slaughter” King Abdullah.
            WND reported last week that, according to Jordanian and Syrian regime sources, Saudi Arabia has been arming the ISIL and that the Saudis are a driving force in supporting the al-Qaeda-linked group.
            The source told WND that at least one of the training camps of the group Iraq of the ISIL is in the vicinity of Incirlik Air Base near Adana, Turkey, where American personnel and equipment are located.
            He called Obama “an accomplice” in the attacks that are threatening the Maliki government the US helped establish through the Iraq war.
            The source said that after training in Turkey, thousands of ISIL militants went to Iraq by way of Syria to establish a caliphate.
            - See more at: http://en.alalam.ir/...

            •  That'll have absolutely no effect on the carnage. (0+ / 0-)

              Whatever training and anti-tank weapons the US procured for ISIS in 2012 is a mistake in the past.

              US efforts were by no means the primary force (funding, training or otherwise) behind the rise of ISIS.

              Obama does not support ISIS today.

              Feeling bad about a poor move 2012 does nothing.

              What can the world do to turn back the current ISIS invasion?

              •  Nothing. (0+ / 0-)

                ISIS is being welcomed by the Sunnis. The Sunnis are sick and tired of Maliki killing them.

                Easy for you to say forget the past, but Sunnis don't feel that way, neither do the Kurds.

                If you think they will accept US involvement on the side of their sworn enemies, you're as delusional as the rest of the warmongers.

                Even Betrayus gets that.

        •  Hence the word "IF" (0+ / 0-)

          Please read that part.  I refuse to talk in terms of black and white.

      •  Full isolationist nation? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, Johnny Q, stargaze, Dallasdoc

        That's snark right? The president regardless of who or what party he is should not have the expanded unitary executive powers that the Bushies grabbed after 9/11. We are a nation of laws not men is a concept that no longer exists. The odious AUFM and it's offshoot the Patriot Act bypasses the separation of powers and checks and balances. We are in a perpetual state of war as we have declared the whole world a battle ground in the war on terra.  

        The purse strings for endless wars seems to be the only power that congress has left to rein in the dogs of war. Of course there are nightmare scenarios that erupt and our 'foreign policy'  works hard to create them. Cause and effect and blow back create these nightmare scenarios and make this dangerous world a tinder box.

        Iraq has been on fire since we invaded and set up our puppet government and built an 'embassy' that's the size of the Vatican. The war there never ended just as none of these covert and overt wars we have going will if the neocons are in control. The Republican blow back is nothing com[pared to the ME blow back that will continue until the US stops intervening and nation building or what ever they now call the Bush Doctrine of preemptive aggressive terror.  

        'What kill list?' said Debbie Wasserman Shultz.            

    •  The only thing a Congresswoman can (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q, Dallasdoc

      ever say that matters is "Yea" or "Nay".

      She just showed you her values.

      Why would ignore her?

      ProTip - the people who like to play PVP MMORPG's often see this site as one.

      by JesseCW on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:55:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site