SIDE ONE:
"John Kerry pushes for broad-based Iraq government; Starts mission with trips to capitals in hope of ending sectarian violence" by Matt Viser | Globe Staff June 23, 2014
CAIRO – Secretary of State John Kerry launched a tour of Middle East capitals on Sunday by urging Iraq to quickly form an inclusive government that could help stem some of the sectarian violence that is engulfing the country and drawing the United States back into a conflict it tried to leave three years ago.
Although Kerry did not call for the resignation of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, as he sketched out a future for the war-torn country he pointedly called for broader leadership beyond the much-criticized head of state.
So have I. See: The Drone Wars: Iraq
“This is a critical moment where together we must urge Iraq’s leaders to rise above sectarian motivations and form a government that is united in its determination to meet the needs and speak to the demands of all of their people,” Kerry said at a press conference here following meetings with Egyptian leaders. “The United States would like to see the Iraqi people find leadership that is prepared to represent all of the people of Iraq, that is prepared to be inclusive and share power.”
He said that in post-coup Egypt? Seriously?
Sunni militants continued expanding their reach on Sunday, taking further control of the Iraq-Syria border and capturing four more towns in northern and western Iraq, including one that is just 60 miles from Baghdad.
Kerry is on a diplomatic mission to the Middle East aiming to come up with a political solution, even as Iraq continues to descend into chaos. Under heavy security — and about 24 hours after spending a picturesque morning on Nantucket — Kerry arrived in Amman, Jordan, on Sunday night. He is expected to soon travel into Iraq.
He doesn't seem to worried about global warming when he is jetting all over the place, the fraud.
His trip comes days after President Obama announced he was dispatching up to 300 military advisers and amid growing dissatisfaction with Maliki, a Shi’ite who has deepened the sectarian divisions with Sunni Muslims.
In his meetings over several days in the Middle East and Europe, Kerry is raising several issues as he attempts to trigger a region-wide effort. He is underscoring the threat that the group of Sunni militants — known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — poses not only to Iraq but to its neighbors and the United States.
Obama also warned in an interview Sunday that the Sunni militants could strengthen and “could spill over into some of our allies like Jordan.’’
He pointed to several other emerging threats in North Africa.
“What we can’t do is think that we’re just going to play whack-a-mole and send US troops occupying various countries wherever these organizations pop up,’’ Obama said in an interview recorded on Friday that aired Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” ‘‘We’re going to have to have a more focused, more targeted strategy and we’re going to have to partner and train local law enforcement and military to do their jobs as well.’’
It's the final push of the Clean Break/PNAC plan!
The United States has not explicitly called on Maliki to step down, and it is unlikely Kerry will do so during his trip. US officials have suggested that calling for his ouster would potentially have the opposite effect, emboldening Maliki and his allies.
Yeah, sure. I love the double bluff bull $hit.
But there is growing pressure on the Iraqi prime minister, and Kerry is also urging Iraqi leaders to expedite the formation of a government that will be far more inclusive and include the voices of Sunnis and Kurds.
“The United States is not engaged in picking or choosing or advocating for any one individual or series of individuals to assume the leadership of Iraq. That is up to the Iraqi people. We have made that clear since day one,” Kerry said. “But we do note that the Kurds have expressed dissatisfaction with the current situation, the Sunni have expressed dissatisfaction with the current situation, and some Shia have expressed dissatisfaction.”
In his discussions in Middle East capitals, Kerry is likely to talk about potential disruptions in the global oil supply that could come as a result of the escalating conflict in Iraq, one of the world’s top oil-producing countries.
That's what made this important all of a sudden.
Kerry is also attempting to persuade neighboring countries to do more to crack down on sources of funding for ISIS.
Like who?
“A lot of the funding and support that has over a long period of time fueled extremism inside Iraq has flowed into Iraq from its neighbors,” said a senior State Department official, briefing reporters during the trip on the condition of anonymity. “And that does not mean that it’s the result of an official government policy in many if not most cases, but it does mean that some of these governments can do more to stop some of that facilitation.”
They didn't mention any names?!!
Of course, it could only be one country: Saudi Arabia! That is why they are nameless.
During his stop in Cairo, Kerry also maintained that the United States was not to blame for the unfolding situation.
“What’s happening in Iraq is not happening because of the United States in terms of this current crisis,” Kerry said. “The United States shed blood and worked hard for years to provide Iraqis the opportunity to have their own governance.
He really didn't say that, did he? What an ignoramus.
“We’ve shed our blood, and we’ve done what we can to provide that opportunity,” he said. “So we’re not going to put additional combat soldiers there. But we will help Iraqis to complete this transition, if they choose it.”
Well, it wasn't his family's blood, and we are not putting combat soldiers in but we are!
Kerry’s unannounced stop in Cairo marked the highest-ranking visit by a US official since Abdel Fattah el-Sissi won the presidency last month. Relations with Sissi have been strained since he overthrew and jailed Mohammed Morsi, the country’s first democratically elected leader.
Where he made the comment that began this article! Better check the soles of your shoes, John.
Kerry raised several thorny issues during the meeting, including jailing journalists, punishing political opponents, and allowing mass trials where death sentences are issued to hundreds.
The knotty conflict in Iraq has few obvious solutions, and several analysts said Kerry’s trip was likely to be the first step in a long process.
“This is a long movie,” said Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars who has served as a Middle East adviser for Republican and Democratic secretaries of state. “You’re just not going to get quick results here, unless there is a real determination on the Shia and Kurds to dislodge Maliki from power. The fight against ISIS is a long term effort. We don’t even have the military assets in place, much less eyes on the ground.”
Millions of people dead and suffering and countries destroyed is not a god-damn movie!!!
“I would keep expectations low,” Miller added. “We’re not going to transform anything. At a minimum, you’re going to prevent ISIS from taking over the country.”
Already laying the narrative for ISIS to melt.
Further complicating the regional politics, Iran’s top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday that he opposed a heightened US role in Iraq. Iran and Iraq are both led by Shi’ites, and Iran has said he would be willing to provide military aid.
“We strongly oppose the intervention of the US and others in the domestic affairs of Iraq,” Khamenei was quoted as saying by the IRNA state news agency, in his first comments on the latest crisis.
They didn't mind the Russians getting involved, did they?
Kerry last week initially indicated that the United States was open to working with Iran but he later clarified that it was only interested in communicating with Iran — not coordinating any military response.
Meaning Israel got to him.
“That’s a major concern for the Iraqis,” said retired Army Colonel Paul Hughes, a former adviser to US occupation authorities in Iraq who is now a senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace. “You’ve got to somehow factor in Iran and how you relate to them. To the Saudis, to the Jordanians, they’re going to be iffy about that because they’ve got their differences with Iran. But we can’t ignore them. We just have to be careful in how we deal with them.”
Who in the world is the USIP?
Among it's illustrious members are people such as Stephen Hadley, the former Bush national security adviser, Chuck Hagel, John F. Kerry, with advice on Iran coming from none other than luminaries such as Richard Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Kenneth Pollack, the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution (and Indyk was Kerry's even-handed peace negotiator in the Israeli-Palestine joke), and Dov S. Zakheim, former foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush, written by none other than the respected ma$$ media reporter Robin Wright.
Real bunch of peaceniks, huh?
Even the "peace people" are Zionist war promoters in my agenda-pushing jewspaper.
Kerry has a long history in Iraq and has made numerous trips there. In 2006, he went as a US senator, traveling with a small entourage.
That's a short version for a long history. He voted to give Bush authority before he didn't, remember that?
He held a series of meetings, with some leaders appearing a bit star-struck over the recent presidential candidate.
Did this reporter perform fellatio on him or what?
“He was there to educate the Iraqi leaders about what was happening in the United States: the costs, the casualties, violence, sectarianism,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, the former US ambassador to Iraq who sat in on the meetings with Kerry. “He was warning them if they didn’t get their act together it would be difficult to sustain support in the United States. It was a similar situation. It could be déjà vu all over again for Kerry.”
Another neo-con globe-kicker turned to for expert advice in my Zionist War Promoter called a newspaper.
--more--"
"US urges new Egyptian leader to adopt moderate policies" by Lara Jakes | Associated Press June 23, 2014
CAIRO — Secretary of State John Kerry on Sunday made the highest-level American visit to Egypt since President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi took office and pressed the former army chief to adopt more moderate policies.
Economic and security problems are undermining Egypt’s stability, and Kerry’s visit signals an attempt by the Obama administration to thaw a relationship with a longtime Mideast ally that has cooled in recent years during the country’s political turmoil.
‘‘For Egypt, this is also a moment of high stakes as well as a moment of great opportunity,’’ Kerry told reporters after meeting Sissi. Kerry then headed to Jordan as he began a weeklong trip to the Mideast and Europe.
Kerry said Egyptians want better economic opportunities, greater freedoms, a free press, and the rule of law.
Over the last year, in particular, the United States has watched warily as Cairo has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist political opposition group that was ousted from power last July.
US officials cite hard-line policies — including the sentencing of hundreds of people to death in trials lasting only a few hours and the jailing of journalists — in refusing to fund all of the $1.5 billion in military and economic aid that Washington usually sends to Cairo each year.
The US reluctance has fueled frustration among Egyptians who accuse the Obama administration of favoring the Muslim Brotherhood and starving Cairo of help at a time when the country’s economy and security are at risk.
Earlier this month, the United States quietly agreed to send an estimated $572 million to Egypt in military and security assistance on top of $200 million in economic aid already delivered.
I found that to be the only thing important in this article. All the rest surrounding it is nothing but blather. The money has been released, end of story. Sissi has American approval.
But Egypt is still calling for the United States to send the rest of its annual $1.5 billion in aid, most of it for the military, which has been suspended until Washington believes Cairo is committed to democracy.
--more--"
SIDE TWO:
"John Kerry wins a vow from leaders in Iraq; Leaders will try to form broader government" by Matt Viser | Globe Staff June 23, 2014
BAGHDAD — Secretary of State John F. Kerry, wielding the threat of US military action against Sunni militants sweeping across the north and west of Iraq, said Monday he was assured by the nation’s bickering political leaders that they would begin working to form a more inclusive government that could ease the sectarian violence.
“Iraq faces an existential threat, and Iraq’s leaders have to meet that threat with the incredible urgency that it demands,’’ Kerry said after meeting under heavy security with multiple officials in Baghdad. “The very future of Iraq depends on choices that will be made in the next days and weeks. . . . Not next week, not next month, but now.”
Kerry said he had received repeated assurances from Iraqi leaders — including from embattled Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — that they plan to begin the difficult process of forming a new government by Tuesday.
But amid fresh signs of worry — and as Sunni militants capture more territory, controlling nearly the entire western frontier including a crossing on the Jordanian border — Kerry also stressed several times that the United States may take military action even before a new government is formed.
“Make no mistake: the president has moved the assets into place and has been gaining each day the assurances he needs with respect to potential targeting,” Kerry said during a press conference. “And he has reserved the right to himself, as he should, to make a decision at any point in time if he deems it necessary strategically.”
Kerry has made it clear he is a loyal follower of the Fuhrer!
Also see: Mass. lawmakers urge Iraq vote before action
All nine US House members from Massachusetts said this week they will sign an open letter, along with nearly 70 other lawmakers from both parties, that urges a vote before any introduction of US combat power.
Kerry landed in Baghdad on an unannounced trip, arriving over a barren landscape aboard a hulking C-17 military airplane. During the daylong visit, he stressed to Iraqi leaders that they needed to do more — and quickly — to stem the tide of a terrorist network that is threatening not only the region but the world.
I'm TIRED of the HYPERBOLE!
“None of us should have to be reminded that a threat left unattended, far beyond our shores, can have grave, tragic consequences,” he said.
And of the FALSE-FLAG WAVING, too!
Thanks for the warning!
Sunni militants — known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — continued to seize towns and border crossings that put them closer to Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Actually, that was two weeks ago. They have stalled and are now in retreat.
And a new poll showed the American public divided over whether the United States had a responsibility to act in Iraq at all, with 42 percent saying it did and 50 percent saying it did not.
Uh-huh!
What a pos poll. NO ONE WANTS BACK IN THERE, sorry! We, the American people, have HAD IT WITH being LIED INTO WARS with FALSE EVIDENCE and FAKE POLLS!
Kerry began the day with Maliki in the prime minister’s office, a meeting held in the same compound where a shoe was thrown at President Bush in December 2008. After conferring for 99 minutes, Kerry was escorted out by officials and, just before getting in his car, said only, “That was good.”
How much did that convoy contribute to global warming?
Maliki has faced a chorus of demands, some even from Shi’ites in Iraq, to step down. US and Western officials have expressed concern that his aggressive crackdown on dissent and his preference for working mainly with Shi’ite officials have alienated Sunnis and Kurds, preventing the country from unifying against the threat from Sunni militants spilling over from Syria.
Kerry next met with Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Shi’ite political party Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq; Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurdish leader who serves as foreign minister; and Osama al-Nujaifi, one of the highest-ranking Sunni officials in Iraq who will be key in forming the next government.
“It’s good to see you again,” Kerry told Nujaifi. “I know you’ve been more than busy. And these are difficult times.”
“These are difficult times for Iraq and the world if we don’t cooperate,” Nujaifi responded.
I don't like the viser of this trip.
In a rare display of unity, the Sunni, Shi’ite, and Kurd officials agreed they would begin the process of forming a new government by July 1, as is required following parliamentary elections in April.
Following the recent certification of election results, the new Parliament will convene by that date to choose a new speaker. Over the following six weeks, they would choose a new president and prime minister, but the timelines can be accelerated. Kerry said no one — including Maliki — objected to the timeline.
Maliki’s bloc won 92 seats in Parliament, but to maintain his position as prime minister, he would need to have 165 seats.
Maliki was named prime minister in 2006. After initially saying he would not seek a third term, he vowed to fight to keep his position, which frustrated some Western officials. A senior State Department official hinted Monday that Maliki is not a lock for prime minister.
“The configurations for forming a government are almost endless,” said the official, briefing reporters before Kerry’s arrival.
“Our message is we can’t figure this out for you,” added the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Because I guarantee you, if we said Mr. X should be speaker, there would then be Mr. Y and Mr. Z who would say, ‘Ah, The Americans are trying to interfere.’ And then — so our message is there’s urgency. There’s now a timeline. You guys really need to figure this out.”
US officials have suggested that calling for Maliki’s ouster would potentially have the opposite effect, emboldening him and his allies.
“The United States is not choosing any leader. We are not making any preconditions with respect to who can and can’t take part,” Kerry said Monday when asked whether he had faith in Maliki. “Neither the United States nor any other country has the right to pick who leads Iraq. That is up to the people of Iraq.”
What is that smell coming from Kerry's shoes?
Although Kerry has not called on Maliki to step aside, as he sketched out a future for the war-torn country where he has pointedly called for broader leadership beyond the much-criticized head of state.
“They must affect a unity that rises above the traditional divisions that have torn the government apart,” Kerry said.
Kerry’s trip comes days after President Obama announced that he was dispatching up to 300 military advisers to Iraq.
His stop in Iraq came after a visit to Cairo on Sunday and a trip to Brussels on Tuesday, where he is trying to coordinate a broader response to the crisis.
I wonder how the people of Europe are going to fell about their armies going back into Iraq in this age of austerity.
During his meetings in Baghdad, he spoke in more detail about the type of assistance the United States is preparing to provide.
There is a major increase in intelligence gathering, which could help Iraq respond to lost territory in the northern parts of the country. The United States is also planning to deliver additional supplies as early as Wednesday. The type of aid was not detailed.
Somehow it never got there.
“There’s no quick fix here. There’s no magic airstrike that’s going to change the entire situation,” the senior official said. “But they want to know that we see the threat, that’s a threat that we all share, and that we’re committed to helping them fight it.”
The Iraqi air force is extremely limited, the official said, with few helicopters and only two Cessna planes that can fire Hellfire missiles.
--more--"
SIDE THREE:
"Kerry departs Iraq as uncertainties remain" by Matt Viser | Globe Staff June 24, 2014
My printed headline says future remains murky, but whatever.
ERBIL, Iraq — Secretary of State John F. Kerry, after a flurry of meetings with leaders of Iraq’s sectarian political factions over two days, left Iraq Tuesday with deep uncertainties over whether the country would emerge from a political crisis that is putting it on the verge of a civil war.
It probably will not be clear for several days whether his visit had an impact, setting up a test of how much influence the United States still has over a country whose leader it deposed in 2003 and one that it attempted to leave behind three years ago.
Although US officials have said publicly that they have no chosen candidates to lead the country, privately they seem to be hoping that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — a divisive Shi’ite leader who has alienated Sunnis and Kurds — will be unable to garner enough support for another term. They are hopeful that enough groundwork has been laid for an alternate candidate to emerge in the coming days and offer a credible challenge to Maliki.
It's called a coup!
Kerry’s mission to encourage a coherent coalition government is complicated by Kurdish leaders, who have long sought more autonomy and are now speaking openly about leaving Iraq altogether.
“We are facing a new reality and a new Iraq,” Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdish region, said before meeting with Kerry Tuesday morning.
During the closed-door meeting, Kerry first raised what he called “the elephant in the room.” He urged Barzani — an adamant opponent of Maliki — not to seek Kurdish independence but to take part in the creation of a more unified, multisectarian government in Iraq.
The elephant in the room is actually a gorilla.
“This moment requires statesmanship,” Kerry said, according to a State Department official who briefed reporters after the meeting. “Whatever your aspirations are for your future, your interest now in the near term are for a stable, sovereign, secure Iraq.”
Kerry came to Iraq at the request of President Obama, in search of a political solution to a country where insurgent Sunni militants have captured large swaths of territory and could pose a threat to neighboring countries. While the United States has kept open the possibility of military strikes, most of Kerry’s trip was focused on spurring the creation of a multisectarian government that can present a united front against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
The trip to Erbil Tuesday — in a northern region that is the seat of the Kurdistan Regional Government — followed meetings he held Monday in Baghdad with Sunni and Shi’ite leaders, including Maliki. During that visit he won assurances from Iraqi leaders that they would begin forming a new government by July 1, as required by the constitution. The Kurds inhabit a semiautonomous region that is still part of the Iraq government and represents about 20 percent of the country’s population. But they have long feuded with Maliki, and Barzani has called for his ouster. “As everybody knows this is a very critical time for Iraq and the government formation challenge is the central challenge that we face,” Kerry said at the start of his meeting with the Kurdish president inside a palace compound, with stained glass windows and heaps of flowers. Barzani, in fatigues-style dress and a turban, told Kerry his visit comes at a “very important time.”
Even as some Iraqi troops abandoned their posts over the past two weeks, the Peshmerga, the Kurdish paramilitary forces, have gained ground. They recently helped solidify Kirkuk following an offensive from the Sunni militants that have been gaining ground in other parts of Iraq.
In an interview with CNN on Monday, Barzani strongly suggested the Kurdish region could seek independence. “During the last 10 years we did everything in our ability, we made every effort, and we showed political stability in order to build a new democratic Iraq,” he said. “But unfortunately the experience has not been successful they way that it should have.”
It's the break Iraq into three pieces as called for by the Clean Break.
His comments could be part of a negotiating tactic aimed at elevating the Kurdish position during the creation of a new government. But US officials have worried that the growing strength of the Kurds could change their demands, or cause them to split off from Iraq.
“If they decide to withdraw from the Baghdad political process, it will accelerate a lot of the negative trends,” said a senior State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “Whereas if they are an active participant in that process . . . they will have substantial clout and influence in Baghdad.”
But the gains that Kurdish forces have made in recent weeks, the official said, could complicate the discussions. A peaceful debate among Kurds has emerged between a minority that support full independence against those who see joining a united government against the insurgents as the wise course, the official said.
“There’s a more majority debate out there that it is in nobody’s interest to have kind of Al Qaeda on steroids on our southern border, and the only way to make sure they are not is to make sure a moderate Sunni component is able to clear these areas,” the official added. “And to do that it’s really essential that the Kurds are an effective and active part of the national political process, including with a very strong Kurdish president.”
Well, it is in certain tribes interest.
Several hours after landing in Erbil — a city filled with high-rise buildings under construction — Kerry was back aboard his C-17 military plane, bound for Brussels for meetings with NATO officials.
What is all that greenhouse-gassing flying doing to the planet, John?
Have you no shame, sir?
--more--"
I'm glad the Globe guy got to go on the trip.
In the Middle of the Triangle:
"Mass. lawmakers urge Iraq vote before action" by Bryan Bender | Globe Staff July 03, 2014
WASHINGTON — The Massachusetts congressional delegation, which has expressed misgivings about renewed US military involvement in the Iraqi conflict, is now calling on President Obama to seek congressional approval before carrying out even limited air strikes against militants.
The White House has said that while Obama will consult with Congress about any military action, prior authorization is not needed, citing previous congressional votes supporting the use of force to confront terrorism.
However, all nine US House members from Massachusetts said this week they will sign an open letter, along with nearly 70 other lawmakers from both parties, that urges a vote before any introduction of US combat power. A similar letter has not been circulated in the Senate.
That kind of bipartisanship not applauded?
Despite Obama’s assurances that no ground troops will be reinserted into the conflict, concerns about an escalating US role have developed because of Obama’s decision to send US military advisers, security personnel, warships, and aircraft to the region, along with US arms shipments to the embattled Iraqi government.
“There is a little thing called the Constitution,” said Representative John F. Tierney of Salem, the top Democrat on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reforms national security panel, noting that only Congress has the power to declare war. “I am not in favor of inching troops there more and more.”
Finally found that, did you? Maybe you should try reading it.
In addition to Tierney, the other members of the Massachusetts delegation backing the call for a congressional vote are Representatives Richard Neal of Springfield; Michael Capuano of Cambridge; Katherine Clark of Melrose; Stephen Lynch of South Boston; James McGovern of Worcester; Joseph P. Kennedy III of Brookline; William Keating of Bourne, and Niki Tsongas of Lowell, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee
“I want [the president] to engage in Congress before engaging in some direct military action,” Tsongas said in an interview. “We do have a lot of Americans there and it is a very dynamic situation.”
The United Nations reported this week that at least 2,400 people died in the fighting in Iraq in June, making it the deadliest month in years.
In response, the Obama administration has beefed up its security forces to protect the American embassy and the Baghdad airport, including with helicopters and armed drones, and dispatched more military advisers to assist the Iraqi government, bringing the total to 700.
The misgivings about getting embroiled in another military quagmire stem in part from the prior experience in Iraq, where US troops were withdrawn in 2011. At the same time, delegation members said they are mindful of new fears about Iraq becoming a failed state and in the process possibly a new incubator for global terrorism.
Will you PLEASE TURN that RECORD OVER!?!
God damn it!
Some members said they are open to the possibility of limited US action to confront the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which earlier this week declared an independent caliphate based on strict Islamic law in the large territory it has seized.
Names will be taken for the war crimes charge, thank you.
Kennedy said he is willing to listen to administration officials “if they are able to lay about a strategy as to why ISIS poses a threat and how air strikes or drone strikes or a special forces mission can help target that.”
How far that family has fallen, huh?
But he said “the administration has yet to lay out to me what that strategy looks like and how our military would play a role. And what does the end game look like?”
There is no end game, haven't you heard?
Even Lynch, who is widely considered the most hawkish voice in the all-Democratic Massachusetts delegation and who supported the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, said he worries that even targeted air strikes against militants could backfire.
“There are no easy answers,” Lynch, who has traveled to Iraq more than a dozen times over the past decade, said in an interview.
“I don’t understand how you can . . . discriminate between ISIS fighters and civilians . . . I think it would be far better if we can coordinate a multinational force there and try to coordinate and direct the Iraqi defense forces in a way that gets the job done.”
Keating, a member of the Homeland Security Committee, said in a prepared statement that he believes the Obama administration must “proceed with the highest degree of caution” before getting directly involved.
McGovern, an early foe of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said in an interview: “it is futile to throw the US military at a problem that has no military solution. Are we going to be taking sides in a sectarian and religious war? We need to debate these issues.”
He's mine, and I'm so unenthused.
Capuano, who is one of the representatives most leery about US military involvement, said that he doesn’t think the Islamic State “poses a direct threat to the United States. Are they good for the United States? No. But there is a difference.”
Haven't you been listening to the administration?
Senator Edward Markey, who declined an interview request, said in a statement that the United States has “a strong national security interest in keeping Al Qaeda-type terrorist organizations like ISIS from establishing safe havens,” insisting that the United States “must remain vigilant and get the best intelligence we can.”
Thanks, Ed.
But to justify direct US military involvement in the conflict, Markey said, the Obama administration has to make “an extremely compelling case.” Markey’s office said he, too, believes that Obama should seek prior congressional approval.
Kerry told me he doesn't need it, and the administration just flipped them the finger.
Senator Elizabeth Warren also declined a request for an interview but said in a statement that “I remain deeply skeptical of US military action in Iraq,” adding that she believes the only solution to the crisis is through a negotiated settlement among the country’s political factions.
I hate to say it, but she has been disappointing.
The Iraqi conflict has pitted some of Iraq’s minority Sunni Muslims against the Shi’ite majority that controls the central government.
As the number of fighters who have sworn allegiance to the Islamic State has grown, efforts to establish a more inclusive Iraqi government to heal some of the divisions have so far failed.
--more--"
Time to get to work:
"John Kerry’s nightmare dream job" by Alex Beam | Globe Correspondent July 03, 2014
I’ve never had many charitable things to say about John Kerry, but now it’s worse; I feel sorry for him.
Kerry certainly isn’t an evil fellow, merely a run-of-the-mill narcissistic opportunist who has risen to the top of the political heap. I admire his service in Vietnam; many children of privilege — did someone mention George W. Bush? — found ways to avoid the war. If he had any stellar accomplishments during his 28 years in the Senate, they are not etched in my memory. He proved to be an inept presidential candidate in 2004.
But now, the spin goes, he is serving in his dream job, secretary of state. Kerry’s father was a Foreign Service officer, and one of his son’s first trips as secretary included a sentimental journey to Berlin, where his father worked in the US Embassy.
Shortly thereafter, Kerry uncorked perhaps the boldest diplomatic initiative of the Obama administration: a full-on restart of the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. (One thinks of his predecessor’s ill-fated “re-set” of US-Russian relations.) In July 2013, Kerry announced his ambitious objective “to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months.”
His praiseworthy goal was to see “two states living side by side in peace and security.” That didn’t work out. In the wake of this week’s discovery of the bodies of three slain Israeli teenagers, peace negotiations seem like a distant memory.
In September of 2013, Kerry offhandedly suggested that Syrian president Bashar Assad could avoid military intervention in his country’s civil war if he would “turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community.” Kerry added: “It can’t be done, obviously.”
It turned out it could be done, but not by John Kerry. International rogue actor Vladimir Putin pulled America’s chestnuts out of the fire by convincing Syria to eliminate its chemical arsenal.
Certainly Kerry’s era has been good for Putin. The Russian leader has astutely perceived a power vacuum on the international stage and realized that no one would oppose him if he decided to, say, annex the Crimea region of Ukraine. So, under the guise of a Soviet-style plebiscite, he did just that. Now he’s supporting armed, pro-Russian irregulars in Eastern Ukraine and elsewhere. According to National Journal, the ultimatum-enamored Kerry ordered Putin & Co. to back off their most recent Ukrainian adventure in a matter of “hours.”
That was last week. Let’s just say Putin didn’t get the message. He was too busy rushing military assistance to Iraq, where American influence is rapidly dwindling.
That was around the time that Kerry sternly warned Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi not to throw three Al Jazeera journalists in jail, ostensibly for “spreading false news” in Egypt. Shortly after Kerry’s jet departed Egyptian air space, the trio were sentenced to years in prison.
There was a time when Egyptian dictators cleaved more closely to the American party line. That time is past. Kerry speaks; no one listens.
None of this is really John Kerry’s fault, which is why I pity him. This just isn’t a propitious moment to represent American interests in the world. The Obama administration has largely accomplished its goal of disengaging from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that cost more than 5,000 American lives. Our national appetite for foreign entanglements may be at an all-time low.
Beware the false flag then, folks.
It’s true that Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine are in flames, but there’s not much we can do about it. It doesn’t help that Kerry’s boss is a lame-duck president with a weather eye focused on his party’s fortunes in this year’s mid-term elections. The world is an intractable place, peopled mainly by friendly rivals and outright enemies.
Welcome to your dream job, Secretary Kerry.
--more--"
I want to quit this job, readers. Sorry.
