MR. BENGHAZI SPEAKS ABOUT RULE UNDER HIS COMMAND

LINDSEY 'BENGHAZI" GRAHAM

Right wing nut job and presidential candidate Lindsey Graham suggested over the weekend that he would fire military leaders who did not support his plan to send 10,000 troops back to Iraq.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that military officials had cautioned President Barack Obama against sending combat troops to fight the radical Islamic group ISIS in Iraq.

“After the past 12 years in the Middle East, there is a real focus by senior military leaders on understanding what the endgame is,” a military official told the Post.

On Sunday, Graham said that those military leaders might be out of a job under his presidency.

“I’m dying to hear from our military leadership on how we degrade and destroy ISIL with the current strategy,” Graham opined. “So now would be a good time to call [Defense Secretary] Ash Carter and our military leaders to our Capitol Hill and say, ‘If you’ve got a problem with what we’re doing, let me know. But tell me how this is working.'”

“Because if our military leadership thinks we’re on path to degrade and destroy ISIL, they need to be fired.”

According to the South Carolina Republican, President Barack Obama had wasted the lives of Americans because he had refused to leave 10,000 troops in Iraq.

“I’m suggesting that Barack Obama had turned down sound military advice by not leaving 10,000 troops behind as advised in 2011,” he insisted. “He’s wasted all the gains we have fought so hard for… Iraq and al-Qaeda had been defeated, they were on their knees.”

Graham added: “And his decision to withdraw completely from Iraq and not help the Syrian Army three years ago when we could has led to what you see here today.”

Watch the video below from CBS’ Face the Nation, broadcast June 14, 2015.

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

GOO IT YOURSELF

"Broken nations, like broken people, you can't fix them"

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

Why Everyone Should Immediately Stop Listening To Dick Cheney

DICK "DICK" CHENEY

In an op-ed published in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, former Vice President Dick Cheney — along with his equally neoconservative daughter, Liz Cheney — accuses President Obama of intentionally undermining the nation’s national security interests in Iraq in an effort to take America “down a notch” in the world. It’s the latest charge levied against Obama by former Bush administration officials who orchestrated the 2003 invasion of Iraq and have since reclaimed their expertise to advise the president on how to best handle the spread of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

War architects L. Paul Bremer, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith aren't letting their false predictions about President Bush’s war in Iraq stop them from arguing in favor of muscular American military intervention — be it air strikes or boots on the ground. And they’re predictably downplaying the roles of the invasion and subsequent reconstruction policies in destabilizing the country and the region.

But the former vice president — who spent years arguing that anyone who questions the administration during a time of war is unpatriotic — goes a step further. He uses the current spike in violence to rehabilitate the Bush administration’s decision to invade and then accuses Obama of intentionally ignoring the terrorist threat and knowingly aiding American enemies. It’s as if the Bush administration left Iraq a peaceful nirvana and Obama broke it into a thousand little pieces.

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” Cheney begins. “Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing.”

Then, the criticism becomes stunningly personal and vitriolic: Obama, he argues, is purposely and knowingly hurting the nation by failing to follow the advise of the very men who invaded the nation in the first place. Cheney writes that “Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch,” and concludes that the president is “on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

The former Vice President also hasn't limited his personal attacks on Obama to Iraq. Cheney has previously claimed that Obama is un-American and speculated that he proposed cutting military funding because he doesn't like our troops. Which leads to an obvious conclusion: Americans should stop listening to Cheney — not because he disagrees with the administration on policy or politically — but because he doesn't seem to believe that the president acts in good faith or was ever legitimate in the first place.

NFTOS

STAFF WRITER

AMERICAN GRANDSTAND

Rachel Maddow let it all out in a very long uninterrupted piece last night on her MSNBC show.

Per the norm for Maddow, she completely eviscerates the American Taliban, AKA the tin foil hat society.

Video Courtesy of MSNBC



My question is, how many times do the NECONS get to be wrong on Iraq before we stop asking them what to do in Iraq?

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief 

Roger West

"Mission Accomplished"

‎2,645 days since George W. Bush profoundly declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq while wearing a flight suit and landing on an aircraft carrier. But like so many other catastrophes associated with the Bush administration, in the end, Bush always seems to get the last laugh. Maybe declaring "Mission Accomplished" was not that crazy after all. If the "mission" in Iraq was to bilk the federal government for hundreds of billions of dollars in "no-bid" contracts for politically-connected corporations like Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater-Xe, reaping enormous profits for Dick Cheney's Old Boys' network -- then it's safe to say: "Mission Accomplished."

Or if the "mission" was to privatize a socialist-leaning economy in the heart of the Middle East through bombing parastatals and government enterprises to create future investment opportunities for U.S.-based conglomerates and other multinational corporations -- then it's safe to say: "Mission Accomplished."

And if the "mission" was to seize sweeping Executive powers and use the Iraq war to scare the hell out of the American people with graphic descriptions of "weapons of mass destruction," "smoking guns," and "mushroom clouds"; if the objective was to win the 2002 midterm elections in an atmosphere of war and win re-election in 2004 as a "wartime" president; if the "mission" was to tarnish your political opponents as "unpatriotic" whenever they criticized your war of choice; if the purpose was to lock-in obscene Cold War-levels of military spending for the foreseeable future -- "Mission Accomplished."

If the "mission" was to wreck a nation that once prided itself on its modernity and level of economic development; if the goal was to weaken a nationalistic Arab country that has water resources, agricultural land, a technocratic class, and immense oil reserves; if the aim was to turn Baghdad into the most violent city on Earth with hideous blast walls, bombed-out buildings, and open sewers, forcing millions of Iraqis to live in squalor as an example to those who might challenge U.S. power -- then it's "Mission Accomplished."

Afghanistan's is where the war needed to be, and no Mr. Bush this conflict can not be called "Mission Accomplished"! Asshat!

What say ye tea bagger??

These are the facts and they are indisputable, while this blogger rests his case he reserves the right to call rebuttal witnesses........

Excerpts taken from Joe Palermo blog May 2009

NFTOS