June 13-16, 2014
Jun 13 00:14 The president who lost 2 wars, Part II Jun 13 11:51 KSTP poll is a defining moment Jun 13 14:49 Matt Entenza is pro-mining? Jun 15 10:09 The cost of voting DFL Jun 15 11:02 American populism, Iron Range edition Jun 15 18:47 KSTP-SurveyUSA poll spells trouble for DFL Jun 16 01:32 The president who lost 2 wars, Part III Jun 16 08:50 President Obama's Iraq disaster
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The president who lost 2 wars, Part II
I'd originally planned on Part II of this series to deal with Afghanistan but I'm changing that because of what's happening in Iraq and DC. First, let's look at what's happening in Iraq from Lt. Col. Ralph Peters' perspective:
Here's the partial transcript of the interview:
RALPH PETERS:When the troops are all gathered in a camp, it's easier to hit them, now when they're stretched out on roads, in a variety vehicles, including a lot of civilian vehicles and clothes. How do you tell them from the refugees? So the only way to do the air strikes is to put special ops spotters on the ground, we're not going to do that. The only real way to stop this onslaught, if the Iraqis can, would be to put troops on the ground, we're not going to do that.
This is President Obama's real legacy. The creation of the first jihadi state in modern history stretching from central Syria to central Iraq and now approaching Baghdad, all because President Obama saw everything from a political lens, he's going to end the war in Iraq, refused to negotiate seriously for a residual U.S. presence.
Just to put this is perspective for viewers. With this jihadi conquest of Mosul. With jihadi forces approaching Baghdad. This is shaping up to be the biggest Arab jihadi victory since the Twelfth Century. 1187 and the fall of Crusader Jerusalem. This is momentous. I can't overstate the importance. Obama's jihadi state in the heart of the Middle East.
###
All the death, all the bleeding, all the money. For naught. Simply because Obama saw things in political and not strategic terms. I do have to clarify one thing: Air strikes could help impede the jihadi movement, it's just now that the bees have left the hive, it's harder to find them.
President Obama put a higher priority on getting out of Iraq than he put on defeating the jihadists. That's painfully obvious. Winning wasn't a priority with his administration. Thanks to President Obama's unseriousness, Iraq is "shaping up to be the biggest Arab jihadi victory since the Twelfth Century."
Back in Washington, reporters are taking shots at President Obama's foreign policy:
What Carney said is instructive:
'Given what we're seeing now in Iraq, can you still claim those as two of your signature achievements?' Karl asked. 'There is no question that the president pledged to end the war in Iraq, and he did,' Carney replied. 'There's no war in Iraq right now?' Karl pressed. 'U.S. combat missions in Iraq,' Carney clarified.
He later asserted that 'core' al-Qaeda, based in Pakistan and Afghanistan, has been 'unquestionably been severely compromised and decimated.' 'Isn't it equally dangerous, or arguably more dangerous, to have an al-Qaeda-linked group in control of major Iraqi cities than to have them in the mountains of Pakistan?' Karl asked. Carney closed by reminding Karl that the September 11th attacks were organized by al-Qaeda out of the Af-Pak region and not Iraq.
That's frightening. The jihadists aren't thinking about 9/11. They're planning their next attack.
Killing the terrorists that planned 9/11 was certainly appropriate. That's the important first part but it isn't the only part. Preventing future terrorist attacks is important, too. That's something the Obama administration has utterly failed at. ISIS is proof of the Obama administration's failure to stop the next wave of terrorist attacks because they aren't doing a thing to stop terrorists from building a new training base.
Had President Obama negotiated a status of forces agreement with al-Maliki, we could've prevented this disaster. That isn't just my opinion. It's Gen. Jack Keane's opinion, too:
It isn't surprising that people, from Vladimir Putin to ISIS, think President Obama's foreign policy has been a blessng to them.
Posted Friday, June 13, 2014 12:14 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 14-Jun-14 10:49 AM
This is far worse than when Saddam was in power. And even more dangerous.
KSTP poll is a defining moment
Whatever the outcome of Novembers's election, KSTP's poll has stripped away the BS from DFL pundits:
Franken clings to a six-point lead over his closest Republican challenger Mike McFadden, 48 percent to 42 percent. The poll has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.1 percent.
"This poll is a cannon burst into the Minnesota U.S. Senate race," says political science professor Larry Jacobs of the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute.
It isn't just that McFadden is close. It's that Sen. Franken has a microscopic lead over Jim Abeler:
Franken has a larger lead over another potential challenger, state Representative Jim Abeler. Franken leads Abeler by nine points, 48 percent to 39 percent. "The fact that even Jim Abeler is only nine points behind Al Franken indicates there appears to be a solid base of opposition to Al Franken," says Jacobs.
Let's put this more succinctly. It isn't just that there's a "solid base of opposition to Al Franken." It's that lots of people haven't seen Franken make a difference in Washington, DC. It's like they know he's there but the average Minnesotan, not the political activists, couldn't make a list of Franken's accomplishments.
The news is worse for Gov. Dayton:
The GOP-endorsed candidate for governor, Jeff Johnson, trails Dayton 46% to 40%. Dayton leads former House Speaker Kurt Zellers by seven points, 46 percent to 39 percent. Former House Minority Leader Marty Seifert is eight points back (46 percent-38 percent) and businessman Scott Honour is ten points back (47 percent-37 percent).
This time, Dayton doesn't have a third party candidate to put him over the top. This time, Gov. Dayton can't take the Iron Range for granted, especially after he picked Tina Smith of Minneapolis to be his Lt. Gov. running mate. This time, the DFL's smear campaign will be responded to.
At this point, it's difficult to tell the impact of the DFL's tepid support for PolyMet will have on the election because that will affect both turnout and voting habits. If the DFL doesn't get a huge turnout on the Range, Gov.-Elect Johnson and Senator-Elect McFadden are a distinct possibility.
This video provides a good perspective on the races:
Gov. Dayton and Sen. Franken are in the fight for their political lives. Whether they survive depends partly on the quality of their campaigns and partly on the amount of outside money spent. In 2010, ABM spent tons of money smearing Tom Emmer. This time, they'll have to decide which races to spend money on. It'll be difficult for them to help Gov. Dayton and Sen. Franken while trying to hold onto the majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives.
Posted Friday, June 13, 2014 11:51 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 13-Jun-14 01:46 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget Franken doesn't have the following:
One, Obama on the ballot dragging out people who wouldn't vote otherwise.
Two, just like Dayton no credible third party candidate to drain the antiFranken votes.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-Jun-14 01:58 PM
Franken didn't have a third-party candidate to help him in 2008, either.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 14-Jun-14 11:03 AM
Gary:
Lets remember Dean Barkley was on the ballot and got about 19% of the vote so he did have a third party candidate that helped him. Barkley's votes were somebody who didn't want to vote for Franken (which in effect was a vote for Franken).
In 2014 with no real independence party candidate those people who don't want to see Franken be senator for another four years will have to vote for McFfaden.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Matt Entenza is pro-mining?
According to Briana Bierschbach's article , Matt Entenza is now pro-mining:
While Otto doesn't claim to be pro- or anti-mining, she's facing an intra-party primary challenge from former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, who has made his support of the PolyMet project one of the key differences between the two in the campaign. Republican-endorsed auditor candidate Randy Gilbert is also pushing his support for mining.
Simply put, Entenza's support for PolyMet is a myth. I wrote Entenza's anti-mining history in this post :
Matt graduated from Worthington Senior High School and won a scholarship to Augustana College in Sioux Falls, S.D., with an eye toward eventually going to law school. After his sophomore year, he transferred to Macalester College in St. Paul and was elected student body president. He received a degree in environmental studies with honors.
According to Entenza's campaign website , he's received an award from the League of Conservation Voters, an organization that proudly declares that they don't support pro-mining candidates :
LCV runs tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America.
Apparently, Entenza's support for mining is a political come-to-Jesus type of thing. He's like Rick Nolan in that respect. Actually, the truth is that Nolan's position on mining changes frequently, mostly based on who he's talking to at the moment.
Entenza has been a political opportunist most of his life. Apparently, he hasn't changed much since his last winning election. Rangers shouldn't take Entenza's pro-mining statements seriously because I doubt he'll consistently support mining projects.
Entenza says he supports PolyMet, which might or might not be true. The question then becomes whether he'd support the Twin Metals-Minnesota mining project or some of the smaller mining projects. That's far from a sure thing.
Posted Friday, June 13, 2014 2:49 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 14-Jun-14 03:36 PM
Who you going to believe? The LCV or what the candidate tells you.....today.....
LL
The cost of voting DFL
A friend of mine sent me this table to illustrate how much environmentalists' policies have hurt families in St. Louis County:
Terry used U.S. Census Bureau information to compare St. Louis County's median household income with Minnesota's median household income.
As you can see, Minnesota's median household income for 2008-2012 was $59,126. The median household income for St. Louis County was $46,231 for the same time period. That doesn't tell the entire story, though. Terry's table does a better job of highlighting the differences.
Eveleth, which is part of the heart of the Iron Range, has a median household income of $35,500, which is $23,626 less than Minnesota's median household income.
Not coincidentally, the Iron Range gets the most of the Metrocrat environmental activists' attention. That's because the activists' highest priority is preventing mining. It isn't coincidence that cities and counties that have the highest poverty rates and lowest incomes are the cities and counties that get most of the environmentalists' attention.
There's another worthwhile comparison to make, this time between Chisago County and International Falls. The median household income in Chisago County is $67,075. The median household income for International Falls is a paltry $30,094, a whopping difference of $36,981.
International Falls, where the MHI is $30,094, has been governed by Democrats since before I was born. FYI- I'll turn 58 in July. Chisago County, where the MHI is $67,075, isn't governed by liberals. Environmental activists haven't paid much attention to Chisago County, either. Again, it isn't coincidental that the income disparity is breathtaking between Chisago County and International Falls.
Chisago County has a diversified economy with relatively few environmental regulations. Environmental regulations heavily influence International Falls' economy even though they aren't technically part of the Iron Range. They're affected by environmental regulations on the logging industry and because of their proximity to Superior National Forest, aka SNF, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, aka the BWCAW.
Organizations like Friends of the Boundary Waters, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, the Sierra Club and Conservation Minnesota have worked overtime to keep the Range's economy from flourishing. They've done everything, including lying, to stop PolyMet from becoming reality.
These organizations didn't hesitate in trying their time-tested method of fear-mongering, which Harlan Christensen exposed in this article . Here's how he started his article:
'Minnesota and mining: Our children, our waters and wild rice are political pawns,' published April 15 by Ely resident C.A. Arneson, paints a frightening picture of political intrigue and dangers to our children and communities. With this masterpiece of environmental fear-mongering, Arneson reveals a disturbing problem with the environmental lobby in Minnesota.
Here's how Mr. Christensen exposed the environmentalists' fearmongering:
I will not argue Arneson's contention of sulfide effects on wild rice and methyl mercury. What I will argue, however, are some key omissions.
Important MPCA evidence and other scientific studies offer evidence that rice beds and waters containing elevated levels of iron significantly reduce mercury methylation and make sulfide nontoxic to wild-rice seedlings. Iron makes the difference, and we are talking about the Iron Range, right?
Organizations like the Sierra Club, Conservation Minnesota and others know the mitigating effects iron has on wild rice seedlings. Mr. Christensen highlights things in this paragraph:
The March 2014 MPCA Wild Rice Sulfate Standard Study Preliminary Analysis revealed that iron presence in mud at levels greater than 1 milligram per liter causes sulfide to bond with the iron and renders it nontoxic to wild rice. Field testing revealed a whopping 8.0 to 84.6 mg/L of iron present in waters throughout the proposed future copper/nickel/PGM mining area in northeastern Minnesota.
This is proof that these environmental organizations are using any tactic to prevent PolyMet from happening. Gov. Dayton has said that he won't take a position on the PolyMet project until all of the studies are done, which sounds reasonable...until people realize that a ton of verifiable, pertinent scientific information is already known.
Gov. Dayton's position to not take a position isn't based on a shortage of scientific information. Gov. Dayton's position is based on his wanting to have it both ways politically.
This proves the age-old axiom that the DFL will always do the right thing...when it's the only option left.
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:09 AM
Comment 1 by James Russell Wiggins at 15-Jun-14 11:50 PM
So, the part of the Eighth that is closest to the metro area has a higher median income than those who are further out? Fascinating. How do you explain Rock County? A solid republican area, whose median income is lower than that of St. Louis county. I imagine this is somehow the fault if the DFL. Anxious to see how you contort yourself the make the case.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-14 01:20 AM
Rock County's MHI is $13,466 lower than the statewide MHI. More importantly, 11.9% of Rock County's residents live below the FPL, compared with 16.1% of St. Louis County living below the Federal Poverty Line. That's important because that tells me that there's a middle class in Rock County. Those statistics tell me that the middle class essentially doesn't exist in St. Louis County.
There'd be a thriving middle class in St. Louis County if there were good-paying mining jobs. Before environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, Conservation Minnesota, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness and Friends of the Boundary Waters took over the DFL, the Iron Range had a healthy middle class thanks to those mining jobs.
That isn't just my opinion. It's Tom Anzelc's & Tom Rukavina's opinion, too. Deal with that.
Comment 2 by James Russell Wiggins at 16-Jun-14 07:15 AM
But if Rock County is below the state's average median household income, isn't that a sign that republicans are neglecting them? You argue quite persuasively that the rangers are being shortchanged by the DFL because their income is below state average. And yet the same is true of Rock County, and your ideology doesn't seem to extend to them. So, the question I have is, does your argument lack validity due to its selective sample size, or does it lack validity because you are a partisan hack who fails to grasp basic economic principles?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-14 08:57 AM
James, your argument isn't substantive. You can't point to a specific Republican policy that's hurting the people of Rock County.
I've cited the Democratic front groups who've worked against the people of St. Louis County. That's a significant substantive difference.
Saying that a county votes reliably Republican isn't proof of anything except that they reliably vote Republican.
Comment 4 by Harlan Christensen at 16-Jun-14 12:19 PM
Gary,
In my research for other articles, I have chatted with several community leaders who express sadness that their once thriving communities are becoming ghost towns due to the severe restrictions and limitations on new business development within the BWCAW.
One might argue that neither political party has a stellar history with regard to reducing poverty in northern Minnesota. However, you need only connect the dots to see the picture of how powerful environmental lobbies and their supporters in the state and federal government are making matters worse, not better, for businesses in northern Minnesota.
It appears that the environmental lobby is no longer content with the feds having isolated the 1.1 million acre BWCAW from mixed-purpose use in Minnesota. Now they appear to be targeting the entire arrowhead region.
Regardless of any reader's political viewpoint, it's hard to deny that restrictive state and federal environmental policies have a direct impact on new business development within the region and have stagnated economic growth and good-paying job opportunities.
Mining and forestry aren't the only industries in northern Minnesota that are being placed at risk by powerful environment groups.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-14 03:17 PM
Harlan, I agree that neither party has a stellar reputation towards the Iron Range. It appears, though, that Republicans have finally figured out that they can win people over if they show that they're sincere about helping Rangers.
These days, environmental organizations have too much pull within the Democratic Party, both in Minnesota and nationally. It's time that changed.
Environmental activists love their cell phones, iPads and high speed internet but they don't want people to mine for the minerals used in those products.
Ronald Reagan used to say you can't be pro-egg and anti-chicken.
Likewise, you can't be pro-cell phone and anti-mining.
American populism, Iron Range edition
I've written before that reading Salena Zito's Sunday columns is one of my favorite things to do, mostly because she ventures into flyover country. Salena's columns are more likely to quote people we've never heard of than people we've heard of altogether too often. Thank goodness for that. We need that realism. This morning's column touches on something that Washington hasn't seen coming:
PLEASANTVILLE, Pa. - The homemade sign along state Route 96 in Bedford County could easily be missed if a driver is distracted by the winding curves at the base of the Allegheny Mountains.
'Our country is dying. Please pray for all of us,' it says in blue letters on a white board. A bouquet of slightly wilted wildflowers is tied to it with a blue bow.
The sign doesn't blame anyone in particular; no political brand or elected official is named, no familiar tagline from social media or cable news is part of the message. In fact, its poignant words (all lower-case, no wild-hare punctuation) and slightly hidden position in some ways reflect the underground populist movement that this column has warned about for months, moderate in tone, big in impact.
It's undeniable that people of all political stripes want government to work. It's also true that they want government to listen to them. DC has stopped doing that:
When Eric Cantor lost his primary race Tuesday, it wasn't because he wasn't conservative enough for his base.
It wasn't because of the Republicans' tea party element. It had nothing to do with immigration reform, or some Democrat conspiracy to flood the polls. And it was not driven by right-wing talk-radio hosts or operatives from Heritage Action, Club for Growth, Citizens United or ForAmerica (which claimed Cantor's defeat was an 'apocalyptic moment for the GOP establishment').
This was a complicated recipe, according to Republican strategist Bruce Haynes.
'There were more than four-and-twenty blackbirds baked into this pie,' Haynes said, adding that ultimately the loss had everything to do with Cantor: He lost touch with his constituency; he became too Washington, too associated with the D.C.-bubble brand; he forgot how to relate and to be that guy from his district.
Something like that is happening in Minnesota, where the DFL is just waking up to the fact that Iron Rangers are upset that they're being ignored. They're being ignored because environmental activists are essentially telling the DFL to ignore the Iron Range.
There's no question but that these Rangers want a new influx of mining jobs and upper middle class incomes. There's no question that professional environmental activists hate mining, especially precious metals mining. The DFL is taking the Iron Range vote for granted. That's the first step in activating populism.
One thing that hurt Eric Cantor the most was that people thought he talked out of both sides of his mouth. He told his constituents that he opposed amnesty, then he supported the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill. Technically, Mark Dayton issn't talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's just doing whatever he can to not get either side upset.
Al Franken is even more 'cautious.' He isn't saying anything on the subject. Sen. Franken didn't mention mining during his 26-minute-long acceptance speech. Mining isn't mentioned on his campaign website, either.
If there's anything that Eric Cantor's loss tells us, it's that ignoring major constituency groups is potentially disastrous politically.
If the "homemade sign along state Route 96 in Bedford County" was found alongside Highway 53 near Eveleth or Virginia, it would read 'Our way of life is dying an nobody's listening. Please pray for us.'
Originally posted Sunday, June 15, 2014, revised 16-Jun 2:57 PM
No comments.
KSTP-SurveyUSA poll spells trouble for DFL
I wrote this post about the shock Sen. Franken and Gov. Dayton got from the first KSTP-SurveyUSA poll of the election season. At the time, I didn't notice the results of some other polling questions. For instance, this question was asked: All 134 members of the Minnesota House of Representatives are up for re-election this November. If the election were held today, would you most likely vote for a Republican or a Democrat in your local House of Representatives race? Or would you vote for a member of another party? Here's the result of that poll:
According to the poll, 36% of likely voters this November will be Democrats, 32% will be Republicans while 29% will be independents. Also, party solidarity is exceptional for both parties, with 95% of Republicans saying that they'll vote for a Republican legislator and 92% of Democrats saying that they'll vote for a DFL legislator.
The key stat for this question is that 40% of independents say that they're likely to vote for a Republican while only 28% of independents say that they're likely to vote for the DFL. First, that's well outside the margin of error. Next, that's a gigantic gap, especially in light of the solidarity of the partisan numbers.
If 95% of self-identified Republicans vote for a Republican and 92% of Democrats vote for a DFL candidate, independent voters will tip the scales. At this point, that means that they'll tip the scales in the Republicans' favor. With Republicans only needing a net gain of 7 sets to retake control of the House of Representatives, I suspect that they'll retake the majority.
Another interesting statistic from the polling relates to the McFadden-Franken race. First, here's the horserace results:
Other than the tight race, what's interesting is that McFadden leads Franken amongst young voters (age 18-34) by a 43%-39% margin. Franken still leading but he's got to be worried about the tightness of the race and how he's underperforming with millenials. Couple that with his PolyMet problems and his turnout worries and he's got a right to sound frantic with his fundraising emails.
The KSTP-SurveyUSA poll isn't good news for Gov. Dayton, Sen. Franken or the DFL. They've got lots of problems to solve. Republicans are fired up. They aren't worried about voter intensity. If they work hard to turn out their voters, they'll do well, including in areas that they haven't traditionally done well in.
The DFL, however, is rightfully worried about voter turnout. They admitted that at their state convention in Duluth a couple weeks ago. Couple that with a tight race at the start of summer and the fact that Republicans will get tons of attention because they've got a competitive primary for governor.
The DFL's divisions are real. They sidestepped them at the convention but they didn't resolve them. What's worse is that they can't resolve them between now and Election Day.
The further you dig into the KSTP-SurveyUSA poll, the more bad news you find for the DFL. How bad that news is this November remains to be determined but it's bad news nonetheless.
Posted Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:47 PM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 15-Jun-14 07:48 PM
Gary, I am a bit concerned that there is not a very large undecided vote. Am I missing something in this poll? I agree that Franken's numbers are not good, considering he is the incumbent. His support is very shallow. It will be up to the Republicans and conservatives to work hard to get out the message that Franken is a rubber stamp for spending and big government centered in Washington D.C.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jun-14 10:21 PM
Gretchen, the small total of undecided voters is something worth paying attention to. Still, I think Franken has more to worry about because the intensity gap strongly favors Republicans.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 16-Jun-14 11:07 PM
Gary:
I have some information that you might be interested in that could hurt the DFL. But I don't want to give the details in public. Can you contact me since your website gets my email address.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The president who lost 2 wars, Part III
President Obama is rightfully getting blamed for losing the war in Iraq. Last Tuesday, he confidently said "The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been." On Thursday, he was forced to address Iraq's military crisis, saying "I don't rule out anything, because we do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold." Hours later, he predictably ruled out boots on the ground.
For all of his mistakes, President Bush still managed to win the war in Iraq. Immediately upon winning election in 2008, President-elect Obama started working on getting out of Iraq. I don't think he wanted to lose the war. That's just what happened.
With ISIS now controlling one-third of Iraq and with the military hardware they captured, Iraq is lost, thanks mostly to President Obama, with an assist from Nouri al-Maliki.
It's just a matter of time until ISIS controls enough of Iraq to establish the biggest terrorist training base in the history of the Middle East. It's fast approaching that status now.
Unfortunately, that's just part of the story.
President Obama said that the war in Afghanistan is winding down. He said that just before releasing the Taliban 5. It's likely that the Taliban and "core al-Qa'ida" didn't get the President's memo. It's just a matter of time before Mullah Obama and Ayman al-Zawahiri control Afghanistan.
Had President Obama been serious about establishing residual military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, ISIS wouldn't have gotten the stronghold on central Iraq that it's got now. Mullah Omar and Ayman al-Zawahiri wouldn't literally be counting the days until they retook control of Afghanistan.
When campaigning in 2008, then-Candidate Obama repeatedly spoke about how he'd do things differently than President Bush. He talked about how America would be liked again. I took that to mean that state sponsors of terrorism and major terrorist organizations wouldn't fear the United States. Further, I took that to mean President Putin would see the U.S. as a paper tiger, which would give Putin the expansionist opportunities he'd prayed for.
President Obama is on the cusp of history. No other U.S. president has lost 2 wars. President Obama is about to change that. Billions of dollars were spent. Thousands of lives were lost. Victory was within our grasp in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then President Obama threw both victories away because domestic politics dictated it and because it just wasn't a priority with President Obama.
Jimmy Carter used to be the worst national security president in my lifetime. President Obama is set to eclipse that mark by leaps and bounds.
Posted Monday, June 16, 2014 1:32 AM
No comments.
President Obama's Iraq disaster
Much as Jane Harman tried defending President Obama's decision to leave Iraq essentially defenseless, the truth is that losing the Iraq War is President Obama's fault. Appearing on Fox News Sunday's All Star Panel, Harman tried telling the panel that it's Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki's fault:
WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, as we discussed with Mike Rogers, this is our worst nightmare. We're not talking about a terrorist group, organization. We're talking about a terrorist army and possible state. How big a threat is ISIS? How much does it go to the Middle East and potentially to the U.S. homeland? And I have to ask, how did President Obama let it get to this point?
JANE HARMAN, D-CALIF., FORMER U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN: This started a long time with a guy named Zarqawi in Iraq, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq.
WALLACE: Who we killed.
HARMAN: Who we killed, and we thought that we had quieted down that particular group. A guy named Jobi York (ph) is now a scholar at the Wilson Center and is writing about this on the front page of "The Washington Post". We thought we killed them but they're back.
I wouldn't lay this at Obama's feet. Remember that the Iraqis refused to agree to a status of forces agreement to keep us in Iraq. And it's one of the reasons --
WALLACE: There are arguments about how hard President Obama pushed.
HARMAN: Well, OK, mistakes were made and supporting Maliki, who is a feckless leader, Tom Friedman called him a jerk today, that's a little harsh. But hey, and unable to control his country is a bad thing.
Had President Obama gotten serious about negotiating a status of forces agreement, we would've had a military in Iraq to stabilize Iraq. Had the US kept 15,000-20,000 troops in Iraq, ISIS wouldn't have gotten the opportunity to establish this caliphate. It isn't that the US military would've continued military operations.
The mere presence would've been a major deterrent against the militaristic operations of an ISIS.
As is often the case, George Will summarized things beautifully:
GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, one does wonder, we can hear from Jane on this, what we're getting if we're getting the value from the $50 billion we spend on our intelligence service, but General Douglas MacArthur said every military disaster can be explained by two words, too late.
It certainly is too late to think we're going to condition aid on vast political reforms in Iraq, which are going to mollify these factions that have been at each other's throats for centuries.
And Julie says, you put heavy weapons in there, when they got the Mosul, the ISIS people, they didn't just empty the jails and the banks, they emptied the arsenals. Seventy-two tanks they came away with, 700 Humvees, thousands of tons of ammunition that will now be fired at the government of Iraq.
And just to get a sense of the humanitarian disaster that's engulfing the region, there are today more Syrian children of school age in Lebanon than there are Lebanese children of school age, as the Syrian population scatters to neighboring countries.
President Obama was opposed to keeping a residual force in Iraq. It was always his political goal to campaign on ending the war in Iraq. It isn't that he wanted Iraq to fail. It's that that consideration wasn't important to him. Ending the war in Iraq was everything to his political base going into 2012.
Predicating an administration's national security policy on purely political considerations is a recipe for disaster. Predictably, that's what we got.
Brit Hume added these observations:
So, the situation in Iraq that the president described in the sound bite that you played before we started here is now gone, forfeited, in my view, by this administration, and by Iraqi President Maliki, who is, you know, a very ineffective and I think weak leader who has made a multitude of mistakes. However, there's been no sign that this president has been deeply engaged with him, trying to prevent him from doing so, and I think that the leverage that we would have had, had we been able to keep a residual force there, would have helped him do that, if he'd been interested. He seems not to have been.
Maliki was always an ineffective leader. Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Iraq during the Bush administration, was Maliki's babysitter. His job, essentially, was to prevent Maliki from doing the things Iran wanted him to do.
The Obama administration pulled the military out of Iraq, then ignored the political situation in Iraq. President Obama didn't pay attention to Iraq. That's why they didn't see ISIS coming until it was too late. Within 5 years, they will have plotted a new wave of terrorist attacks against the US, western Europe and Israel.
That isn't a bold prediction. It's trusting these terrorists at their word. They said that's their goal. There's no reason not to believe them because they've consistently followed through on their threats.
President Obama forfeited the war that President Bush had won. Now he owns that disaster.
Posted Monday, June 16, 2014 8:50 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 16-Jun-14 08:35 PM
Quite frankly, the closest historical figure I can compare to our feckless Chief Executive is the Emperor Nero, who fiddled while Rome burned, and then placed the blame on innocent Christians.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-14 09:16 PM
While Iraq burned, Kerry spoke about the national security threat global warming poses. The way this administration operates, you'd think that competence was illegal.
