None of this is really funny anymore; in fact, it's rather enraging before the resigned sigh here.
“We are very close to sending Americans back into combat.... that shows just how bad the situation has become.”
Into Iraq again?
"As Iraq veteran, Moulton torn on OK for troops; Says Obama’s plan to fight ISIS must have end game" by Bryan Bender, Globe Staff February 21, 2015
WASHINGTON — For Representative Seth Moulton, who served four tours in Iraq, traveling to the war-torn country for the first time in more than six years this week was a bittersweet return.
“I spent three years of my life there,” said the Salem Democrat, who traveled to Baghdad on a fact-finding tour for the House Armed Services Committee. “I have a lot of Iraqi friends. In that sense, it was good to be back.”
But as the freshman lawmaker flew in a helicopter over the scarred landscape where he became a decorated Marine Corps officer — in a war he later said he disagreed with — he was on a very different mission: to decide whether to vote to possibly send more US troops back to fight there.
President Obama has asked Congress to formally authorize the five-month-old US-led air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with signs that the United States is sliding toward reinserting combat troops....
They have kind of already put them back in, but don't call them combat troops.
--more--"
And why are they even needed? I was told "we are winning!"
"US-led coalition pummels Islamic State with airstrikes" Associated Press December 01, 2014
BEIRUT — US-led coalition warplanes carried out as many as 30 airstrikes overnight against Islamic State militants in and around the group’s de facto capital in northeastern Syria, activists said Sunday.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strikes targeted Islamic State positions in the city of Raqqa as well as the Division 17 air base, which the militants seized this year from government forces.
The monitoring group, which relies on a network of activists inside Syria, reported at least 30 coalition strikes in all. The Local Coordination Committees, an activist collective, also confirmed the airstrikes. Neither group had casualty figures.
There was no immediate confirmation from the US military.
The coalition began targeting Islamic State militants in Syria in September, expanding an aerial campaign already hitting the extremist group in Iraq.
Many of the US airstrikes in Syria have targeted fighters who are attacking the predominantly Kurdish town of Kobani on the Turkish border.
Sorry I'm tired of the SILLIness, readers.
The Observatory said that at least 50 Islamic State militants were killed on Saturday and early Sunday in clashes with Kurds and in coalition airstrikes. Eleven Kurdish fighters were also killed, according to the Observatory.
Idris Nassan, a Kurdish official from Kobani, said by telephone that tens of Islamic militants were killed, but he did not have a concrete figure.
The Islamic State has been attacking Kobani since mid-September. The militants’ offensive has bogged down, and the Syrian Kurds — backed by their Iraqi brethren with heavy weapons — appear to have seized the momentum and to have begun pushing the jihadis back.
In Egypt on Sunday, a court designated the Islamic State a terrorist organization and banned it in the country.
The ruling also declared all of the Islamic State’s affiliates to be terrorist organizations as well.
Ansar Beit al-Maqdis or Champions of Jerusalem, a jihadi group based in the Sinai Peninsula that regularly attacks Egyptian security forces, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State last month.
Other countries across the region also have banned the group.
All these false flag creations of ghosts and goblins for pure propaganda purposes.
At a meeting in Istanbul on Sunday, Pope Francis and the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians demanded an end to the persecution of religious minorities in Syria and Iraq and called for a ‘‘constructive dialogue’’ with Muslims.
Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I issued a joint declaration that capped the pontiff’s three-day visit to Turkey with a strong show of Christian unity.
The declaration urged leaders in the region to intensify assistance to victims of the Islamic State and to allow Christians who have had a presence in the region for 2,000 years to remain on their native lands.
‘‘The terrible situation of Christians and all those who are suffering in the Middle East calls not only for our constant prayer but also for an appropriate response on the part of the international community,’’ they wrote.
Specifically, Francis told reporters on the way home from Istanbul, all Islamic leaders — political, religious, academic — should clearly condemn terrorism so that their people hear it directly from their mouths.
‘‘We need a global condemnation — including from Muslims — who say, ‘This isn’t who we are. This isn’t the Koran,’ ’’ he said.
He is simply feeding into the narrative and is part of the unholy elite in this world.
Honestly, the pooper-pumpers have lost all credibility.
Francis, who leads the 1.2 billion-strong Catholic Church, and Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of the world’s 300 million Orthodox Christians, called for ‘‘constructive dialogue’’ with Islam ‘‘based on mutual respect and friendship.’’
‘‘Inspired by common values and strengthened by genuine fraternal sentiments, Muslims and Christians are called to work together for the sake of justice, peace, and respect for the dignity and rights of every person, especially in those regions where they once lived for centuries in peaceful coexistence and now tragically suffer together the horrors of war,’’ they said.
Tell it to EUSrael, dip (he just validated every thing I've been saying about false flag terror).
Francis began his final day in Turkey with a lengthy, two-hour liturgy alongside Barthlomew in the Orthodox Church of St. George, where incense mingled with hypnotic chants and prayers on an important feast day for the Orthodox Church.
Related: Putting the Pope on ISIS
See: Pope awards high church honor to Armenian mystic St. Gregory
I don't think Turkey liked that (tit for tat).
--more--"
"US-led coalition halting Islamic State’s advances, officials say" by Carol Morello, Washington Post December 04, 2014
Then why we need troops for the spring offensive, etc?
BRUSSELS — Foreign ministers from the coalition of about 60 nations appeared so confident that they are making progress in the fight against the Islamic State that they have begun talking about the need to help Iraq rebuild once the extremists are ousted.
OMG! It wasn't even rebuilt after the Bush aggression and they are talking about.... wait a minute, this is propaganda from months ago!
I guess things change a lot in seven weeks -- or I'm reading pure bulls***.
But I'm supposed to belieeeeeeeve what I read in this pos paper!
The issue was raised by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi at the Brussels meeting, which was held after a year-end NATO summit. No dollar figure was mentioned, however.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry said several nations in the region, both Sunni and Shi’ite, offered to help pay for Iraq’s rebuilding after it is rid of the Islamic State, an Al Qaeda offshoot that is also variously known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh.
A pile of sh.... by any other name.... Iraqis have heard all thi$ before and got squat.
‘‘Might we have to contribute to it? Sure,’’ Kerry said, acknowledging some US cost. ‘‘We ought to. It’s part of our foreign policy, and it’s part of our engagement.’’
Meanwhile, unemployment insurance lapses (conveniently removing those people from the official figures), food stamps are cut in a nation that is in hunger (with some starving), and there is no money (we are told) to fix roads and bridges (everything goes to the wars, the 1%, and the lavish lifestyles of the political cla$$) -- even as the economy is allegedly roaring to life.
But much of the cost, he added, will be paid by oil-rich countries of the Persian Gulf.
Yeah, well, we were told that last time and it didn't happen!
Saudi Arabia, he said, had offered to donate $500 million.
With the price of oil still dropping?
He added that several other countries, which he declined to name, also have indicated that they will help.
Why? Are they embarrassed? Their public not like it? Image take a hit? It's a good deed, right, rebuilding?
‘‘We are particularly excited at the prospect of having the region engage in a significant way across sectarian lines, I might add, in order to be able to address this reconstruction notion,’’ Kerry said.
I used to be when I saw such talk, before I released all the strife starts once the U.S. gets there (and a little before).
The ministers at the meeting were both optimistic and restrained as they assessed the coalition’s progress.
I'm told "airstrikes on the militant group’s strongholds have helped Iraqi and Kurdish troops reclaim territory."
************
But they cautioned that the Islamic State is far from defeated, despite some battlefield victories against the group since the US-led group began a campaign of targeted airstrikes in the fall.
Uh-huh.
In a short speech at the outset, Kerry reflected on both the gains and the long slog ahead.
Did he give Rumsfeld the appropriate attribute?
(Blog editor lowers chin to chest and sighs. I've got a set of condemnations to hand out.)
‘‘Our commitment will be measured most likely in years, but our efforts are already having a significant impact,’’ he said.
Did you get that?
NEVER-ENDING WARS based on LIES no matter WHAT PARTY is in POWER!
He cited a series of strategic successes, including regained ground around dams and oil refineries in Iraq and airstrikes in Syria targeting the leadership of the Islamic State....
And the curfew was lifted!
The gathering was infused with optimism about progress in the battle against the Islamic State.
Ooooh!
In one measure of that confidence, the officials started talking about the long-range need to mend societies riddled with social ills that have allowed Islamist extremism to flourish.
Print plus:
“There is a growing sentiment . . . that ISIL is simply symbolic,” said a senior State Department official present at the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. “ISIL is representative of a larger issue, of a larger problem. There are deep social, economic, governance and educational issues which have, in many ways, created the environment in which radicalism and extremism can take root and ultimately gain coherence in these groups.”
It sure is, and it isn't just me!
The Islamic State, nevertheless, has continued to expand its influence across the Middle East and North Africa. The U.S. military is now tracking militant training camps in eastern Libya. In Brussels, the ministers also made a thinly veiled reference to Syria’s future without President Bashar al-Assad.
Of course. That's the purpose of "ISIS!"
--more--"
Better put on your waders:
"Obama set to ask for explicit power to attack militants" by Andrew Taylor and Nedra Pickler, Associated Press February 06, 2015
WASHINGTON — President Obama is poised in coming days to ask Congress for new authority to use US military force against Islamic State militants, the White House said Thursday. But the top Republican in Congress warned that it won’t be easy to pass the measure and that it will be up to Obama to rally support from lawmakers and the public.
Why not? They always get what they want when it comes to war?
White House spokesman Josh Earnest responded that the administration is dedicated to getting a new authorization with support from Republicans and Democrats. That’s even though Obama has argued new authorization isn’t legally necessary. He has been ordering airstrikes on militant strongholds in Iraq and Syria for months without it.
‘‘The president believes it sends a very powerful signal to the American people, to our allies, and even to our enemies, that the United States of America is united behind this strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,’’ Earnest said, using an acronym for the Islamic State group, ‘‘that across branches of government and even across political parties, even in this divided time in our nation’s political history, at least, that Democrats and Republicans are committed to this very important task.’’
You can stop sending signals now; I gotcha. Forever war over lies and self-created frauds cooked up by AmeriKan intelligence and propaganda.
Earnest declined to discuss specific provisions being discussed, such as how long the authorization will last, what geographical areas it will cover, and whether it will allow for the possibility of ground troops.
He said details are still being worked out with lawmakers from both parties, with the hopes of coming up with the authorizations that draw bipartisan support.
Yeah, they can come together when certain interests are involved.
Top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California said talks with the administration are focusing on a time frame of three years, while the other issues are still being worked out. Pelosi said it will be a challenge for wary Democrats, the White House, and Republicans seeking a broader use of military force to forge an agreement but she ultimately expects one to be reached.
‘‘I’m not saying anybody’s come to an agreement on it,’’ Pelosi said. ‘‘I think it’s going to be a challenge, but we will have it.’’
Yes, we WILL HAVE WAR!!!
Obama has been relying on congressional authorizations that President George W. Bush used to justify military action after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
No wonder the whole six years plus has felt like an extension of that odious regime.
However, critics say the White House’s use of post-9/11 congressional authorizations is a legal stretch, at best.
And at its worst?
--more--"
"Obama to seek congressional backing to fight Islamic State; Democrats apt to be skeptical; Some fear an open-ended war" by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times February 11, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told lawmakers the president will seek formal authorization to fight the Islamic State that would prohibit the use of “enduring offensive ground forces” and limit engagement to three years.
What the hell does "that" mean?
The approach offers what the White House hopes is a middle way on Capitol Hill for those on the right and left who remain deeply skeptical of its plans to thwart extremist groups.
The request, which could come in writing as early as Wednesday morning, would open what is expected to be a monthslong debate over presidential war powers and the wisdom of committing to another unpredictable mission in the Middle East while the nation is still struggling to cope with the consequences of two prolonged wars.
Stupid move, debate over.
Congress has not voted to give a president formal authority for a military operation since 2002, when it backed George W. Bush in his campaign to strike Iraq after his administration promoted evidence, since discredited, that Saddam Hussein’s government had unconventional weapons.
Notice how the term weapons of mass destruction and implied nuclear threat are now "unconventional weapons."
Related: New York Times Now Claims Iraq Did Have Chemical Weapons
Whatever.
The new request to conduct military operations would repeal Bush’s authorization. But it would leave in place the broad authority to counter terrorism that Congress granted him in 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks, which many Democrats found troubling.
Then it doesn't really repeal anything, does it?
After more than a decade of war and 7,000 US military lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama will face doubts — not only from Democrats who want stricter limitations set on where he can send troops and how long his authority will last but from Republicans, who are dubious of the administration’s strategy for defeating the Islamic State extremist group.
****************
The resolution also requests authority to wage battle beyond the fight against the Islamic State to include “associated forces.” It would contain no geographic limitations.
Then it is a resolution declaring WORLD WAR, isn't it?
That would also mean HERE at HOME!
Both are sticking points for many Democrats, who expressed concern the president was setting the country up for another open-ended conflict.
Those tensions surfaced Tuesday as Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, visited the Capitol to present Democrats with the outlines of the language the White House plans to send to Congress. By most accounts, he faced a skeptical audience and the concerns of many lawmakers who worry that giving the president approval will reward a decade of mismanagement in the Middle East.
One of them said this is “insanity.”
The Obama administration has insisted it does not need Congress’s authority to continue its military campaign. But an affirmative vote in Congress would bolster the legitimacy the president already claims as commander in chief in the battle against the Islamic State and confer a stronger legal underpinning for his actions.
He didn't get his war against Syria last year, but he is going to this year!
Many Republicans, despite opposing Obama on almost every other issue, seem willing to give him that authority.
“I have disagreements with the president’s conduct of foreign policy and what he’s done,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. “But in this instance, we need an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. Our enemies and our allies need to know that we speak with one voice.”
In a reflection of how strained relations between the White House and congressional Republicans remain, reaction to the president’s proposal in many corners of the Capitol was grudging acceptance.
Like me above.
“You go to war with the president you’ve got, which would give us all pause,” said Senator Mark S. Kirk, Republican of Illinois. Asked whether he had reservations about voting to approve Obama’s request, Kirk did not hesitate.
“No,” he said. “I think it’s the right thing to do to take these guys out.”
Administration officials refused to discuss what was in their proposal, saying it would be made public shortly.
With the exception of some more libertarian-leaning lawmakers who will oppose the president because they object in principle to getting involved in another war, Obama’s biggest problems may not be with Republicans but with Democrats.
Me in the middle.
The sharpest debate is likely to focus on the prohibition of “enduring offensive ground operations” and whether that term is so vague it could allow Obama or a future president to launch the kind of ground war so many lawmakers fear.
Because the president would not need to ask Congress for another Islamic State force authorization until 2017, the legislation would cover the next president, as well.
They keep handing off the wars, the damn bastards!
“Unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. “Because forget about Barack Obama. There will be a new president in two years. And this authorization would go into that new presidency.”
I'd like to forget him, and WTF? All these years a Democrat Senate and no update to the war authority?
--more--"
Time to plan the campaign:
"Debate begins on scope of US-led war against ISIS" by Bryan Bender, Globe Staff February 12, 2015
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s request for Congress to authorize the US-led military campaign against the Islamic State ran into a barrage of opposition Wednesday from both sides of the aisle.
Really?
Opponents in his own party said as written it could draw US ground troops into a civil war, while Republicans who control both the Senate and the House insisted the wording does not give the military sufficient tools to win. Both sides seized on the resolution’s reference that any US ground combat would not be “enduring,” saying it was overly vague.
After months of delay, Obama sent to Capitol Hill a two-page resolution authorizing what he called “the limited use” of US armed forces to confront the radical Islamic group that has been the target of US-led airstrikes since it seized large parts of Syria and Iraq last summer.
I was told we were winning, but you know.... grain of salt, all this.
The careful language in the proposed authorization appeared to be crafted to placate antiwar Democrats who fear handing the president or his successor a blank check to engage in another open-ended war. But it was also intended to avoid tying the hands of military officials.
Given the swift criticism, the resolution appeared unlikely to pass in its current form, setting the stage for weeks of hearings and debate, according to lawmakers and analysts.
***********
Representative Bill Keating, a Bourne Democrat and member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said he would not support the authorization in its current form, echoing concerns that it could allow US troops to be drawn back into a Middle East war.
They already have been.
The resolution as proposed would replace the one approved by Congress in 2002 to authorize the US-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.
The new proposal would also authorize Obama to use the military to confront the Islamic State “or associated persons or forces.”
The resolution does not limit the US military action to Iraq and Syria, leaving open the possibility of using military force against the group in other countries. It sets a deadline to expire in three years, when Congress would have to review the authority.
But much of the opposition on both sides of the aisle centered on how the resolution addresses the possible use of combat troops. While Obama has said repeatedly he does not intend to insert US troops directly into the fight, the proposed war resolution states that ground troops would not be used “in enduring offensive ground combat operations.”
Actually, they will be needed in Mosul, but don't let that spoil the narratives!
The debate quickly centered on what that means. Some Democrats said it could open a back door to the possible use of large numbers of American ground troops for a limited period of time.
The infamous slippery slope we have seen again and again.
Obama has already approved the deployment of about 3,000 military advisers to Iraq.
Don't call them combat troops.
“I have grave concerns about this,” said Representative Stephen Lynch, a South Boston Democrat who has traditionally been more hawkish than his fellow Bay State lawmakers.
Related: 9/11 Lynch Mob
Lynch, who has recently traveled to the region, said he worries that the way it is worded “we could put 100,000 troops on the ground for a year or two.”
He said he also opposes the measure because he is concerned the renewed efforts to train and arm Iraqis and so-called moderate Syrian rebels are destined to fail.
He cited the efforts to train nearly one million Iraqi security forces earlier in the decade at a cost of $25 billion, only to see them flee in the face of the Islamic State onslaught.
Wasted tax loot as this country falls apart.
“Now we are going to do the same thing again in a shorter period of time with less money,” he said. As for the Syrian rebels, “they are not moderate and neither are they a competent or cohesive group of fighters.’’
Insane!
Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III, a Democrat from Brookline, raised similar concerns. He said the proposed resolution is too broad because it doesn’t sufficiently limit where the US military can be used to confront the group or how.
“I have strong reservations about what that could potentially mean,” he said in an interview.
He added that he was also disappointed the measure did not call for repealing the authorization for the use of military force that was passed immediately after the 2001 terrorist attacks. That resolution, he said, was not intended to be used to justify an open-ended war against an Islamic terrorist group in countless countries.
Similar views about the new proposal were expressed by leading Senate Democrats.
Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy said he supports fighting Islamic State “but we must do so in a way that avoids repeating the missteps of the past and that does not result in an open-ended authorization that becomes legal justification for future actions against unknown enemies, in unknown places, at unknown times.”
Both Democratic senators from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey, vowed to scrutinize the authorization. Markey said he needed assurances that an approval of the authorization would not lead to an open-ended war or “unfettered deployment of ground troops with no stated exit strategy.”
Blah, blah.
--more--"
"Islamic State expands influence around globe" by Eric Schmitt and David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times February 15, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Islamic State is expanding beyond its base in Syria and Iraq to establish militant affiliates in Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, and Libya, US intelligence officials assert, raising the prospect of a new global war on terror.
Do I even need type anything?
See who is fanning the flames of war fever yet again?
You would have thought they would have learned when it comes to assertions by US intelligence officials. Guess not.
Intelligence officials estimate that the group’s fighters number 20,000 to 31,500 in Syria and Iraq.
How can they know that when they apparently can't keep track of them coming or going (teens girls running away to be terrorists, pub-leeze) despite the global surveillance grid and five eyes spying, etc, etc?
That's the problem with rank rot propaganda: it leaves an unavoidable stench you can not help but notice.
And here it is again!
There are less formal pledges of support from “probably at least a couple hundred extremists” in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Yemen, said a US counterterrorism official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential information about the group.
Lieutenant General Vincent R. Stewart, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in an assessment this month that the Islamic State is assembling a growing international following.
Despite us beating 'em on the battlefield!
Nicholas Rasmussen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, echoed Stewart’s analysis in testimony before Congress last week.
This is all -- like the Bush lies -- self-reinforcing sh**.
But it is unclear how effective these affiliates are, or to what extent this is an opportunistic rebranding by some jihadist upstarts hoping to draft new members by playing off the notoriety of the Islamic State.
PFFFFFFT!!!!
Critics fear such assessments will once again enmesh the United States in a protracted, hydra-headed conflict as President Obama appeals to Congress for new war powers to fight the Islamic State.
$ome are hoping!
“I’m loath to write another blank check justifying the use of American troops just about anywhere,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
But they will do it anyway!
The sudden proliferation of Islamic State affiliates and loyalist fighters motivated the White House’s push to give Obama and his successor new authority to pursue the group wherever its followers emerge — just as he and President George W. Bush hunted Al Qaeda franchises outside the group’s headquarters, first in Afghanistan and then in Pakistan, for the past decade.
“We don’t want anybody in ISIL to be left with the impression that if they move to some neighboring country, that they will be essentially in a safe haven and not within the range of United States capability,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Wednesday, using an acronym to refer to the Islamic State.
The Islamic State began attracting pledges of allegiance from groups and individual fighters after it declared the formation of a caliphate, or religious state, in June. Counterterrorism analysts say it is using Al Qaeda’s franchise structure to expand its geographic reach, but without Al Qaeda’s rigorous, multiyear application process.
This could allow its franchises to grow faster, easier, and farther.
“Factions which were at one time part of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as groups loyal to it or in some ways working in tandem with it, have moved on to what they see as more of a winning group,” said Steven Stalinsky, executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute in Washington, which monitors Arabic-language media and websites.
Oh, look, another war-mongering Zionist organization turned to by the NYT for expert analysis and to "inform debate."
There is no indication that the Islamic State controls territory in Afghanistan, but it has signaled its interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan and has reportedly sent envoys there to recruit.
We will get to that silliness below.
Similarly, until recently, leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen, used nonconfrontational language to mask simmering disagreements with the Islamic State and its head, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But tensions peaked in November, when a faction of Al Qaeda fighters there swore loyalty to Baghdadi.
Related: ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi Trained by Israeli Mossad, NSA Documents Reveal
Any authorization to use US military force against the Islamic State could arguably also cover interventions in Egypt and Libya, where active militant organizations have pledged allegiance to the group and have received its public acknowledgment as “provinces” of the putative caliphate.
Yes, that DID CATCH MY EYE!
Although there is little or no public evidence that the Islamic State’s leaders in Syria and Iraq have practical control over its North African provinces, its influence is already apparent in their operations and is destabilizing the countries around them.
A publication released by the central group last week included a photograph of fighters in Libya with its affiliate there parading 20 Egyptian Christian captives in the Islamic State’s trademark orange jumpsuits, indicating at least a degree of communication.
Another fake beheading video, and it is no longer funny. It's just annoying.
In Egypt, the Sinai-based extremist group Ansar Beit Al Maqdis sent emissaries to the Islamic State in Syria last year to seek financial support, weapons, and tactical advice, as well as the publicity and recruiting advantages that might come with the Islamic State name, Western officials briefed on classified intelligence reports said.
PFFFFFFFFT!
And they know this because the NSA is watching them like they are watching us, right?
In neighboring Libya, at least three distinct groups have declared their affiliation with the Islamic State.
--more--"
Who will be leading the fight going forward:
"Military needs ‘lasting approaches’ to threats, Carter says; Pentagon nominee appearing before Senate panel" by Bryan Bender Globe Staff February 04, 2015
WASHINGTON — Ashton B. Carter, President Obama’s nominee for secretary of defense, told Congress Wednesday that he believes the United States must step up military aid to allies fighting the Islamic State and consider providing weapons to Ukrainian forces battling Russian-backed rebels.
In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the longtime Harvard professor and senior Pentagon official laid out his vision for the Department of Defense in the final two years of the Obama administration.
He said the United States must “craft lasting approaches” to a host of global threats, but with fewer resources. Savings, he said, could be obtained by cutting back on wasteful weapons projects.
Yeah, right. Good luck with that.
Carter, who served as the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer and second-ranking official from 2009 to 2013, coasted through the first half of his confirmation hearing before the Republican-controlled panel and is expected to win speedy confirmation by the Senate. The committee’s chairman, John McCain of Arizona, praised Carter as “an honest, hard-working, and committed public servant.”
He's there because he knows where all the stolen loot went and thus he will work to cover it up, and maybe someone should commit Mad-Dog McCain.
“I sincerely hope the president who nominated you will empower you to lead and contribute to the fullest extent of your abilities,” McCain told Carter. “Because at a time of multiplying threats to our security, America needs a strong secretary of defense now more than ever.”
Carter — joined by his wife, Stephanie, and grown children, Will and Ava — was introduced to the committee by former senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
Enough said!
Carter fielded a series of pointed questions about Obama’s policies, from plans to close the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to efforts to pressure Iran to relinquish its quest for nuclear weapons.
On one of the most pressing issues, the battle against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Carter expressed a desire to do more to empower the Iraqi government, Syrian rebels, and other local forces who he said will determine whether the US-led air campaign that began last August can achieve its aims.
I was told above.... never mind.
“It needs to be its lasting defeat,” Carter said of the militant group that now controls large parts of Iraq and Syria. “I say lasting because it is important that when they get defeated, they stay defeated. That is why it is important that we have those on the ground there who will ensure that they stay defeated.”
Yeah, strange how these intelligence agency created phantoms and ghosts never go away and are in and out of graves a lot.
To that end, Carter, 60, pledged to cut through “way too much red tape” to get more equipment to the front lines, including addressing complaints by allies such as Jordan that it is taking too long to get approved US military equipment.
Hopefully it isn't cut-corner crap like everything else.
*****************
In prepared testimony, Carter outlined a host of other challenges he expects to grapple with — from extremist groups creating “turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa” to “long-standing tensions from the past and the rapid changes in Asia.”
World War!
He cited the urgency to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction and “new dangers in new domains like cyber.”
You can stop shoveling now.
“The number and severity of the risk is not like anything I’ve seen in my life,” Carter told Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, but in order to do that, Carter expressed hope that the administration and Congress can find a way to reverse automatic cuts to the defense budget put in place in 2011.
The money was restored later, but don't let that $poil the narrative for you.
He called the across-the-board cuts risky and said they convey “a misleadingly diminished picture of our power in the eyes of friends and foes alike.”
“I very much hope we can find a way together out of the wilderness of sequester,” he said.
But Carter, who earlier in the Obama administration presided over a series of weapons program cancellations, insisted that more money is not the ultimate solution and pledged to root out more waste.
We have been hearing this same song-and-dance forever from these people.
Where you been, Ash? Oh, right, working in that very office!
“Not every defense dollar is spent as well as it should be,” he testified in prepared remarks.
No $hit?
“The taxpayer cannot comprehend, let alone support the defense budget, when they read of cost overruns, lack of accounting and accountability, needless overhead, and the like,” he said. “This must stop.”
Carter appeared to address widespread concerns that the White House has micromanaged national security.
Isn't that their job in our civilian-led military?
He pledged to relay candid military advice to both the president and to the Congress.
“If I am confirmed,” he said, “I will be a stickler for the chain of command,” he told senators.
--more--"
They approved him by a vote of 25-0, and he was confirmed:
"Senate emphatically approves Carter as defense secretary" by Emmarie Huetteman, New York Times February 13, 2015
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday confirmed Ashton B. Carter, a former deputy defense secretary who is President Obama’s choice to replace Chuck Hagel, to be the next defense secretary, approved by a vote of 93-5, a striking scene of accord as tensions mount over the wait to confirm Loretta E. Lynch as the next attorney general. Five Republicans opposed Carter’s confirmation.
The transition to a new Pentagon chief comes as Congress considers a number of pressing defense issues, including a request by Obama that would formally authorize military action against the Islamic State group.
Republicans were cautious to draw the distinction between supporting Carter and supporting Obama, especially as many lawmakers expressed reservations about the parameters of the authorization regarding the use of ground troops and its place among an existing authorization for military action.
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called Carter “one of America’s most experienced defense professionals.” But he said he did not think Obama would put his full faith in Carter.
“When it comes to much of our national security policy, I must candidly express concern about the task that awaits Dr. Carter and the limited influence he may have,” he said.
Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, one of the five Republicans who opposed Carter’s nomination, said he had decided to vote against Carter and Lynch.
“Unfortunately, I believe both of these nominees will simply continue to uphold President Obama’s flawed agenda at these important agencies,” he said in a statement.
But as one confirmation moved forward, another stalled.
Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday decided to delay a committee vote to confirm Lynch, the president’s nominee to replace Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Though several Republicans praised Lynch as her confirmation hearings ended last month, they featured a heavy dose of harsh criticism for Holder’s Justice Department.
I'm going to cop out on her for now, too.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, applauded the speed of Carter’s confirmation but struck back against the “needless delay” of Lynch’s.
“She has already waited far longer for her confirmation vote than any attorney general in modern history,” Leahy said in a statement.
The nomination of Carter was seen as perhaps the best chance for a smooth confirmation process through the newly Republican-controlled Senate. Top Republicans, including McCain, had expressed admiration for him in recent years.
He was also seen as a good choice to manage the Pentagon as it continues to struggle with the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. Carter, who managed a $600 billion annual budget in his previous post, pushed lawmakers to lift the mandatory cuts during his confirmation hearing.
Carter’s nomination was approved unanimously Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
During his hearing, Carter successfully parried with Republican senators on the Obama administration’s approach to the Islamic State and handling of detainees at the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.
A physicist and former Pentagon official who oversaw the purchase of weapons systems, Carter began his career at the Defense Department as an assistant secretary charged with international security policy during the Clinton administration.
Okay, so he knows steel towers can't collapse that way due to jet fuels fires. Next.
Carter will succeed Hagel, who announced his resignation in November under pressure from Obama over the mounting conflicts in the Middle East and agitation from Republicans, including those with whom Hagel once served in the Senate.
Chuck got the boot, but good!
--more--"
And his first stop?
"US open to slowing troop pullout in Afghanistan" by Michael S. Schmidt, New York Times February 22, 2015
KABUL — Four days into his tenure as defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter arrived in Afghanistan on Saturday morning and opened up the possibility of slowing the withdrawal of the last American troops in the country to help keep the Taliban at bay.
The 10,000 troops are now conducting counterterrorism operations and advising the Afghan military, and most are scheduled to be withdrawn by the end of 2016.
They were supposed to be withdrawn at the end of 2014, but what's another broken promise?
Carter said the Obama administration was open to having a stronger military relationship with the current Afghan unity government, led by President Ashraf Ghani. Ghani’s government has reset relations with the West after turbulent years when President Hamid Karzai often clashed with the United States.
Now Karzai was never our guy!
“A lot has changed here, so much for the better,” Carter said. “Our priority now is to make sure this progress sticks. That is why President Obama is considering a number of options to reinforce our support for President Ghani’s security strategy, including possible changes to our timeline for the withdrawal of US troops.”
Sick of being lied to like me?
He also said the United States was “rethinking the details” of its counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan, but he did not elaborate on what he meant by that.
Already, Afghan and American officials have said, on the condition of anonymity, that the US forces were playing direct combat roles in many joint special operations raids and were not simply going along as advisers.
Like they will need to do in Iraq.
That is at odds with policy declarations by the administration, which has deemed the US role in the war essentially over, but reflects the reality in Afghanistan. Record numbers of Afghan soldiers, police, and civilians died in fierce fighting last year.
In other words, YOU ARE BEING LIED TO by THIS DELUSIONAL ADMINISTRATION, dear readers!!
The Afghan and American leaders are expected to have more discussions about troop levels next month when Ghani visits President Obama at the White House.
Carter said he was in Afghanistan to begin his own assessment of the security situation since the United States wound down its combat mission last year.
That's at odds with the.... you know.
He said he had seen varying reports about Afghanistan, including some that said the Taliban were undergoing a resurgence and others that claimed a small group of militants had rebranded themselves Islamic State members....
Say what?
--more--"
"Carter praises progress made by Afghanistan’s security forces" Associated Press February 23, 2015
Just as the Taliban are resurging, causing the US to slow down withdrawal of troops?
WTF?
More of them dead than ever progress?
What is this guy on, or is he just a monster?
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on Sunday called Afghanistan’s army ‘‘a powerful force in their own right’’ but declined to say whether he thinks the United States can scale back military training and advising this year as planned.
This guy must get tired of shoveling sh**.
Carter wrapped up two days in the war zone by consulting with US and Afghan commanders at Kandahar airfield, an important hub in the network of US advisory posts that are due to close before year’s end.
Aaaaaaaaah! Now I see why the propaganda!
Meeting with reporters at this base in southern Afghanistan, Carter declined to say whether his visit had convinced him that the Kandahar operation should stay open longer.
The advisory work here will wind up this summer unless President Obama alters his plan for ending the US military presence.
Has once already, and it's always easier after the first time.
Carter said he was impressed by progress in professionalizing the Afghan army and police.
‘‘The Afghan security forces have become a powerful force in their own right, and good partners in their own way,’’ he said.
No green on blue attacks or whatever lately?
Carter, who started as Pentagon chief earlier this month, is preparing recommendations to Obama about the future of the American military presence in Afghanistan. On Saturday, Carter met with Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s president, and said afterward that Obama is considering whether to slow the pace of troop withdrawals this year and next.
On Monday, Carter plans to convene a meeting in Kuwait of US military commanders, intelligence officials, and diplomats for what his aides billed as a free-wheeling discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Obama administration’s strategy for countering the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.
Okay!
Carter intends to examine the intellectual underpinnings of the strategy against the Islamic State, including the bombing campaigns and their connection to broader political and regional goals, a senior defense official said.
I love it when egg-headed war-makers contemplate things in their exclusivity while death and destruction rain down on people.
Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said among those expected to attend the conference are US ambassadors from Jordan and elsewhere in the Mideast, the top US commanders from Europe, Africa, and the Mideast, and special operations force leaders.
Related:
"Rear Admiral John F. Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary and the public face of the US military for the past year, is the first casualty of a new defense secretary who has expressed reservations about having a uniformed officer represent the Defense Department in its daily dealings with the media. Unlike his predecessor, Carter wants a civilian in the role of chief spokesman, administration officials said."
In a separate development Sunday, the Jesuit order said an Indian priest who was abducted in Afghanistan eight months ago has been released....
As if anyone cared?
--more--"
"Pentagon chief backs US strategy against Islamic State" by Robert Burns, Associated Press February 24, 2015
CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait — Defense Secretary Ashton Carter convened an extraordinary war council Monday on Iraq’s doorstep six days after taking office, gathering military and diplomatic leaders to discuss the Obama administration’s oft-criticized strategy for countering the Islamic State group.
Can the AmeriKan pre$$ be any more steeped in militarism? It's oozing from every word.
Carter left suggesting the approach is mostly on track. But he said the coalition should make more creative use of social media to counter the global communications campaign the Islamic State uses to attract funds and recruits.
Yeah, put out more propaganda to counter the propaganda already put out by the same forces while shutting down truth-tellers and destroying free speech. Gotcha.
He also said the coalition should be getting more out of some member countries, but he did not name them publicly.
He didn't have to.
‘‘The discussion indicated clearly to me that this group [the Islamic State] is hardly invincible,’’ Carter told reporters after six hours of closed-door talks with the officials he dubbed ‘‘Team America.’’
Oh, PHOQUE YEAH!
Folks, this is all CARTOONS!
The propaganda being shoveled forth by our war-criminal leaders is all made-up garbage!
‘‘Our discussion this afternoon affirmed the seriousness and the complexity of the threat posed by ISIL, especially in an interconnected and networked world,’’ he said, using an alternate acronym for the militants. ‘‘Lasting defeat of this brutal group can and will be accomplished.’’
Problem is, this is not nearly as funny as the film.
Carter said the US-led aerial bombing campaign in Iraq is going well, and he expressed confidence that the US military is well suited to carrying out a longer-term effort to train and equip an opposition rebel force in Syria.
REALLY? He said that in light of all I have read and posted here???
Carter will return Washington on Tuesday to meet with President Obama.
Lieutenant General James L. Terry, the Army general commanding the war effort in Iraq and Syria, said the Islamic State fighters are ‘‘halted, on the defensive’’ in Iraq and facing a new counterattack by Iraqi forces in Anbar province to retake a town the militants seized earlier this month.
Then why are US troops needed and streaming back into Iraq?
Terry said he is confident the Iraqi push will succeed in retaking the town of al-Baghdadi. But he said of the Islamic State fighters, ‘‘No doubt, they’re adaptive.’’
Yeah.
In Washington on Monday, the White House called on congressional lawmakers to work out their differences over an authorization to use military force against the extremist group and Obama is open to changes to his initial proposal to achieve a compromise.
Obama wants authorization to pursue the group across international boundaries but would be willing to accept amendments to much of the rest of his draft, the White House says.
--more--"
May not be needed:
"Afghan official says peace talks with Taliban due in ‘near future’" Associated Press February 24, 2015
That's just SILLI! Peace talk in a war-promoting paper.
I've seen this before, and the wars continue and continue.
KABUL — Abdullah Abdullah, the chief executive in Afghanistan’s national unity government, said Monday the government will begin peace talks with the Taliban in the ‘‘near future.’’
With U.S. approval, right?
Abdullah made the statement after President Ashraf Ghani declared over the weekend that peace is closer now than at any time since the war began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Wow, that's not the way it has been reported here -- until now!
Abdullah, whose post is akin to that of a prime minister, spoke to a meeting of Cabinet members on Monday. An official in Abdullah’s office who was present at the meeting quoted Abdullah as saying that Pakistani officials had told Taliban leaders to begin peace talks with the Afghan government. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of a Cabinet meeting.
‘‘Pakistani officials said they have told the Taliban that their only option now is to hold peace talks with the Afghan government, and this is what we have been waiting to hear,’’ the official quoted Abdullah as saying.
Brokering a peace deal with the insurgents is a priority for Ghani, who took office in September.
Since taking office, he has pursued a strategy aimed at forcing the Taliban leadership to accept that their cause — replacing his government with an Islamist emirate — is hopeless.
If they are real Islamic fundamentalists as claimed, that is the last thing they would think! God is on their side! And if they capitulate to such a thing, well, they be hanging out in the strip bars with the dupe terrorists set up in the false flags.
Oh, yeah, they are also suffering somewhat of a resurgence as they carry the war into the winter months this year, yup.
He has sought support of nearby countries believed to protect, fund, and arm the Taliban, including Pakistan.
--more--"
Anything else in the Afghan cabinet?
Obama's other war that has not gotten as much attention:
"Russia, US, Europe lose ground in media watchdog's report" Associated Press
PARIS (AP) — Reporters Without Borders says Russia, the United States, Japan and many parts of Europe lost ground last year in its ranking of global press freedoms.
War, the rise of non-state groups, crackdowns on demonstrations and economic crises provided a backdrop for a tough 2014. The Paris-based media watchdog said two-thirds of the 180 countries surveyed in its annual World Press Freedom index scored worse than a year earlier.
Western Europe, while top-ranked, lost the most ground as a region. Three Nordic countries headed the list, but there was slippage in Italy — where mafia and other threats weighed on journalists — and Iceland, where the relationship between the media and politicians soured, the group said.
Italy also saw "an increasing number of abusive defamation proceedings against journalists," Lucie Morillon, a research director at Reporters Without Borders, told The Associated Press. Italy plunged 24 spots in the classification to 73rd.
The U.S. fell three places to 49th amid a "war on information" by the Obama administration in some cases. Reporters also faced difficulty covering events like demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, where a black teenager was shot dead in August by a white police officer, Morillon said.
Russia dropped two notches to 152nd place after passing "draconian laws" to limit freedom of information, the group said.
Egypt rose one place to 158th even though it currently detains 15 journalists "on arbitrary grounds" including two al-Jazeera employees who have been held since December 2013, the group said.
Libya fell 17 spots to 154th place: Reporting on militia activities in the war-torn north African country is "an act of heroism," Reporters Without Borders said.
Legislation allowing access to information helped Mongolia jump 34 spots — the highest single advance — to 54th place, and reforms helped Georgia rise to 69th place, up 15 spots.
China, Iran and North Korea all remained among the 10 lowest-ranked countries.
The group uses seven criteria to calculate its index — measures for media independence, the diversity of opinions expressed, self-censorship, transparency, abuses and the legislative environment. Results are based on questionnaires sent to its own correspondents, plus journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights defenders.
--more--"
Related:
What solves a foreign-policy crisis?
I'll take a wild guess: war.
Obama’s legacy will be like Truman’s
Dropping A-bombs?
Time to get rolling....
