migeli

So now I'm an illegal.See this is how you TeaParty trash start your absurd birther rumors, and muslim rumors about Obama.Garbage spewed by you scum is what is wrong with the country.Imbeciles who havent got a clue furthering the interests of the 1% lead by the Koch brothers and Tramps Palin and Bachman.Wait till they take whatever benefits you trolls have, then you will be singing a different tune suckers.I am so mad I now that I am going to swim back home to North Korea, and send a missile over here right up your perverted asses.You two hillbillies or swamprats , whatever you are havent got an I.Q . put together of one

stryker Loc: Guyton,Ga.

You got some of it right.Bush's plan included leaving 10,000 permanent troops there,to train the Iraqi's,remember that,didn't think you would.Maliki,Iraqi president,in case you didn't know,wanted to have jurisdiction over our troops,so they could be tried in Iraqi courts,and we would have no part of that,thats why all the troops were pulled out,remember that.If we had a strong leader at the time,lets say Bush or Reagan,they would reminded that arrogant prick Maliki who give him that position,and none of this mess happening today in Iraqi would be happening today.You people that are uninformed and misinformed need to research a little before you make yourself look foolish.Look,at the time,we didnt know what to expect,we were still traumatized by 9-11.Were mistakes made,I would say yes,were they deliberate lies told to manipulate and pursue a personnel agenda,no.If anything,give Bush the benefit of the doubt,he panicked.Bush was not my hero either,but say what you will,he loves America and done what he thought was right.

stryker Loc: Guyton,Ga.

Iran has troops on the move now.I bet Iran will be in Iraqi by 6-15-2014.Its gonna get a lot worse before it gets better!

migeli

Call in The Three Musketeers, and Mighty Mouse.

Jack2014

Do you mean these pukes?

What a destruction crew! Send them to The Hague


How about this actor puke? I meant B actor puke


Great performance R TPukes

Jack2014

YOU NEED TO DO YOUR'S,PUKE
LET SOMEBODY KNOW WHEN YOUR DONE READING YOUR COMIC BOOK,SOURCES
FAREED ZAKARIA Opinion writer
Fareed Zakaria writes a foreign affairs column for The Post. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS and editor at large of Time magazine.

June 12 at 8:27 PM WASHINGTON POST
It is becoming increasingly likely that Iraq has reached a turning point. The forces hostile to the government have grown stronger, better equipped and more organized. And having now secured arms, ammunition and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from their takeover of Mosul — Iraq’s second-largest city — they will build on these strengths. Inevitably, in Washington, the question has surfaced: Who lost Iraq?

Whenever the United States has asked this question — as it did with China in the 1950s or Vietnam in the 1970s — the most important point to remember is: The local rulers did. The Chinese nationalists and the South Vietnamese government were corrupt, inefficient and weak, unable to be inclusive and unwilling to fight with the dedication of their opponents. The same story is true of Iraq, only much more so. The first answer to the question is: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lost Iraq.

The prime minister and his ruling party have behaved like thugs, excluding the Sunnis from power, using the army, police forces and militias to terrorize their opponents. The insurgency the Maliki government faces today was utterly predictable because, in fact, it happened before. From 2003 onward, Iraq faced a Sunni insurgency that was finally tamped down by Gen. David Petraeus, who said explicitly at the time that the core element of his strategy was political, bringing Sunni tribes and militias into the fold. The surge’s success, he often noted, bought time for a real power-sharing deal in Iraq that would bring the Sunnis into the structure of the government.

A senior official closely involved with Iraq in the Bush administration told me, “Not only did Maliki not try to do broad power-sharing, he reneged on all the deals that had been made, stopped paying the Sunni tribes and militias, and started persecuting key Sunni officials.” Among those targeted were the vice president of Iraq and its finance minister.


But how did Maliki come to be prime minister of Iraq? He was the product of a series of momentous decisions made by the Bush administration. Having invaded Iraq with a small force — what the expertTom Ricks called “the worst war plan in American history” — the administration needed to find local allies. It quickly decided to destroy Iraq’s Sunni ruling establishment and empower the hard-line Shiite religious parties that had opposed Saddam Hussein. This meant that a structure of Sunni power that had been in the area for centuries collapsed. These moves — to disband the army, dismantle the bureaucracy and purge Sunnis in general — might have been more consequential than the invasion itself.


Militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria displayed the black flag of the Islamic State and shouted, “Towards Baghdad,” as they drove patrol cars stolen from the Iraqi army. (  / Reuters)
The turmoil in the Middle East is often called a sectarian war. But really it is better described as “the Sunni revolt.” Across the region, from Iraq to Syria, one sees armed Sunni gangs that have decided to take on the non-Sunni forces that, in their view, oppress them. The Bush administration often justified its actions by pointing out that the Shiites are the majority in Iraq and so they had to rule. But the truth is that the borders of these lands are porous, and while the Shiites are numerous in Iraq — Maliki’s party actually won a plurality, not a majority — they are a tiny minority in the Middle East as a whole. It is outside support — from places as varied as Saudi Arabia and Turkey — that sustains the Sunni revolt.

If the Bush administration deserves a fair share of blame for “losing Iraq,” what about the Obama administration and its decision to withdraw American forces from the country by the end of 2011? I would have preferred to see a small American force in Iraq to try to prevent the country’s collapse. But let’s remember why this force is not there. Maliki refused to provide the guarantees that every other country in the world that hosts U.S. forces offers. Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here’s what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: “It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.” He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki’s government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian.

Washington is debating whether airstrikes or training forces would be more effective, but its real problem is much larger and is a decade in the making. In Iraq, it is defending the indefensible.

LOOK BUSHIE BOY TOLD US SEVERAL TIMES THAT WE WERE IN IRAQ STILL TO TRAIN THEIR SECURITY FORCES AND ARMY REFUTE THAT,IDIOT! HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? Our soldiers go through 3 months of basic training.
Gerald ford said our role was to help as much as possible until the locals could stand on their own.,if this was impossible why did we invade and occupy Iraq?and Afghanistan?
I reported that invading Afghanistan was a fool's errand!
I reported that Hussein couldn't possibly have any WMD left!
I reported that it was impossible for Hussein to have a nuclear program!
Media paid no attention. They didn't even call our scientists! They didn't want to know because they were blood thirsty
BUSH AND CHENEY HAD TO HAVE IRAQ'S OIL.

Go on take a guess


Any comments


Recognize yourselves,pukes


Get rid of these pukes in 2024

Jack2014

GREAT JOB!
SORRY I MISSED ALL YOUR FUN
HERES A REAL GOOD ARTICLE ON SUMMARIZING IRAQ CURRENTLY

FAREED ZAKARIA Opinion writer
Fareed Zakaria writes a foreign affairs column for The Post. He is also the host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS and editor at large of Time magazine.

June 12 at 8:27 PM
It is becoming increasingly likely that Iraq has reached a turning point. The forces hostile to the government have grown stronger, better equipped and more organized. And having now secured arms, ammunition and hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from their takeover of Mosul — Iraq’s second-largest city — they will build on these strengths. Inevitably, in Washington, the question has surfaced: Who lost Iraq?

Whenever the United States has asked this question — as it did with China in the 1950s or Vietnam in the 1970s — the most important point to remember is: The local rulers did. The Chinese nationalists and the South Vietnamese government were corrupt, inefficient and weak, unable to be inclusive and unwilling to fight with the dedication of their opponents. The same story is true of Iraq, only much more so. The first answer to the question is: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki lost Iraq.

The prime minister and his ruling party have behaved like thugs, excluding the Sunnis from power, using the army, police forces and militias to terrorize their opponents. The insurgency the Maliki government faces today was utterly predictable because, in fact, it happened before. From 2003 onward, Iraq faced a Sunni insurgency that was finally tamped down by Gen. David Petraeus, who said explicitly at the time that the core element of his strategy was political, bringing Sunni tribes and militias into the fold. The surge’s success, he often noted, bought time for a real power-sharing deal in Iraq that would bring the Sunnis into the structure of the government.

A senior official closely involved with Iraq in the Bush administration told me, “Not only did Maliki not try to do broad power-sharing, he reneged on all the deals that had been made, stopped paying the Sunni tribes and militias, and started persecuting key Sunni officials.” Among those targeted were the vice president of Iraq and its finance minister.


But how did Maliki come to be prime minister of Iraq? He was the product of a series of momentous decisions made by the Bush administration. Having invaded Iraq with a small force — what the expertTom Ricks called “the worst war plan in American history” — the administration needed to find local allies. It quickly decided to destroy Iraq’s Sunni ruling establishment and empower the hard-line Shiite religious parties that had opposed Saddam Hussein. This meant that a structure of Sunni power that had been in the area for centuries collapsed. These moves — to disband the army, dismantle the bureaucracy and purge Sunnis in general — might have been more consequential than the invasion itself.


Militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria displayed the black flag of the Islamic State and shouted, “Towards Baghdad,” as they drove patrol cars stolen from the Iraqi army. (  / Reuters)
The turmoil in the Middle East is often called a sectarian war. But really it is better described as “the Sunni revolt.” Across the region, from Iraq to Syria, one sees armed Sunni gangs that have decided to take on the non-Sunni forces that, in their view, oppress them. The Bush administration often justified its actions by pointing out that the Shiites are the majority in Iraq and so they had to rule. But the truth is that the borders of these lands are porous, and while the Shiites are numerous in Iraq — Maliki’s party actually won a plurality, not a majority — they are a tiny minority in the Middle East as a whole. It is outside support — from places as varied as Saudi Arabia and Turkey — that sustains the Sunni revolt.

If the Bush administration deserves a fair share of blame for “losing Iraq,” what about the Obama administration and its decision to withdraw American forces from the country by the end of 2011? I would have preferred to see a small American force in Iraq to try to prevent the country’s collapse. But let’s remember why this force is not there. Maliki refused to provide the guarantees that every other country in the world that hosts U.S. forces offers. Some commentators have blamed the Obama administration for negotiating badly or halfheartedly and perhaps this is true. But here’s what a senior Iraqi politician told me in the days when the U.S. withdrawal was being discussed: “It will not happen. Maliki cannot allow American troops to stay on. Iran has made very clear to Maliki that its No. 1 demand is that there be no American troops remaining in Iraq. And Maliki owes them.” He reminded me that Maliki spent 24 years in exile, most of them in Tehran and Damascus, and his party was funded by Iran for most of its existence. And in fact, Maliki’s government has followed policies that have been pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian.

Washington is debating whether airstrikes or training forces would be more effective, but its real problem is much larger and is a decade in the making. In Iraq, it is defending the indefensible.

Remind you of the pukes you've been arguing with by chance?

Jack2014

No bush made the mistake.
He and Cheney invaded for oil and we were promised that it would pay for it.hahaha, another big R lie!
The troops that were supposed to stay were trainers and not combatants!
So suck on that pike !

karenbee Loc: S Carolina

They've got us right where they want us. Tearing out each other's throats. Chasing shiny irrelevant things while they burn Rome.

Jack2014

Who rang your bell again?
Your rant showed your true colors,didn't it?
Read this if you can!
I told you that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan was doomed to failure
Ifnwe didn't invade or Cheney died ofnmis first HA, we would not have the problems we have today.

The Washington Post
Opinions
David Ignatius: Maliki’s Iraq disaster
102 More


The battle between Islam's two major branches began centuries ago and is threatening Iraq's path to a stable democracy today. The Post's senior national security correspondent Karen DeYoung explains. (Davin Coburn and Kate M. Tobey / The Washington Post)

DAVID IGNATIUS Opinion writer
David Ignatius writes a twice-a-week foreign affairs column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog.

June 12
The stunning gains this week by Iraq’s Sunni insurgents carry a crucial political message: Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite prime minister of Iraq, is a polarizing sectarian politician who has lost the confidence of his army and nation. He cannot put a splintered Iraq together again, no matter how many weapons the Obama administration sends him.

Maliki’s failure has been increasingly obvious since the elections of 2010, when the Iraqi people in their wisdom elected a broader, less-sectarian coalition. But the Obama administration, bizarrely working in tandem with Iran, brokered a deal that allowed Maliki to continue and has worked with him as an ally against al-Qaeda. Maliki’s coalition triumphed in April’s elections, but the balloting was boycotted by Sunnis.

Given Maliki’s sectarian and authoritarian style, a growing number of Iraq experts are questioning why the Obama administration continues to provide him billions in military aid — and is said to be weighing his plea for lethal Predator drones. The skeptics include some who were once among Maliki’s champions.

“I believe that Maliki has never had the energy or intent” to unify Iraq, says Derek Harvey, a professor at the University of South Florida who advises Centcom and is one of the leading U.S. experts on Iraq. “He was a bad choice in the beginning and our embrace of him was an error.”

A retired U.S. four-star commander asks in an interview: “How in the world can you keep betting on this number [Maliki] given what’s happened?” He believes Maliki is incapable of retaking the territory he has lost, and he wonders when Iran’s Quds Force will intervene to rescue Maliki’s collapsing army.


Maliki’s U.S.-trained army has suffered a series of crushing defeats, as Sunni insurgents from an offshoot of al-Qaeda captured the northern Sunni cities of Mosul and Tikrit and swept toward Baghdad. Already the Sunni extremists control most of western Iraq.

The Shiite-led Iraqi military has crumpled in battle, fleeing the battlefield and leaving behind tanks, Humvees and other vehicles. In cities such as Fallujah, cleared by American troops at great cost, al-Qaeda and its progeny are now dominant.

Maliki’s sectarian political style has helped create this disaster. He has gutted the army of the commanders he suspected of plotting against him. One U.S. expert likens him to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who purged the Red Army on the eve of World War II.

“He has replaced his generals with Shiite commanders who represent not competency, but political loyalty” to Maliki and his Dawa Party, says Harvey.

The victors belong to an extremist Sunni faction known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. These pitiless, battle-hardened fighters, remnants of what was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, have attracted jihadists from around the world. One of their most effective commanders in Mosul is said to have been a Georgian-born Chechen known as Omar al-Shishani. The Chechen was also a key ISIS commander in recent battles around the Syrian city of Aleppo — an illustration of the group’s potent cross-border reach.

ISIS forces have swept south along Highway 1 from Mosul, swelling their ranks by liberating 2,000 to 3,000 jihadist fighters from a prison in Nineveh province. The jihadists have captured so much U.S.-made equipment that it’s reportedly hard to distinguish friend from foe along the chaotic highway south.


Maliki’s forces are said to be drawing their battle lines just above a huge arms depot at Taji, about 20 miles north of Baghdad, which was a key U.S. logistics base during the American occupation, from 2003 to 2010. By consolidating his forces so far south, Maliki is, in effect, conceding the northern cities. Harvey argues that only the pesh merga fighters of Iraqi Kurdistan are strong enough to retake Mosul, but some experts doubt they would launch such a battle unless it was a prelude to a fully independent Kurdistan.

Senior Obama administration officials said Thursday they recognize that Maliki is seen by Iraqi Sunnis as a sectarian figure, and they are pressing him to expand his base in “unity government.” But they said there is no “conditionality” in the U.S. offer of military assistance and that the overriding goal short term is to help Malilki stop the Sunni extremists and prevent the fall of Baghdad.

As the fabric of the Middle East rips apart along sectarian lines, the United States and its allies face a fundamental strategic choice: Can they convene a regional peace conference — which would seek to reconcile Sunni and Shiite forces and their key backers, Saudi Arabia and Iran — in some new security architecture?

Restitching the fabric of Iraq and Syria may be Mission Impossible. But with its focus on counterterrorism and weapons supplies, the Obama administration seems to have decided to treat the region simply as a shooting gallery.

Rs are idiots when they say we should have left 10000 trainers in Iraq!
TRAINERS,NOT COMBATANTS! MC Cain and Graham and boner,grow up little boys.

The best Viet Cong air ace $$$ could buy

migeli

Jack 2014 has the right answers.The rest of you know only what you have been told.Just bunch of right wing Fox News , Koch brothers B.S., propaganda.Let that Tea Party lead you all around by the nose, and see where that will get you.

Jack2014

Hate to disagree w M but your basic premise is not correct. The mistake was Maliki's. Totally,

He wanted us out so he could pursue his vengeance accordingly against the Sunnis first and then the Kurds.
Also,I need to remind everyone again that we would not have this mess today w/o Bushies invading Iraq for oil.
It was guaranteed to fail from the start.
The Washington Post
Opinions
David Ignatius: Maliki’s Iraq disaster
102 More


The battle between Islam's two major branches began centuries ago and is threatening Iraq's path to a stable democracy today. The Post's senior national security correspondent Karen DeYoung explains. (Davin Coburn and Kate M. Tobey / The Washington Post)

DAVID IGNATIUS Opinion writer
David Ignatius writes a twice-a-week foreign affairs column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog.

June 12
The stunning gains this week by Iraq’s Sunni insurgents carry a crucial political message: Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite prime minister of Iraq, is a polarizing sectarian politician who has lost the confidence of his army and nation. He cannot put a splintered Iraq together again, no matter how many weapons the Obama administration sends him.

Maliki’s failure has been increasingly obvious since the elections of 2010, when the Iraqi people in their wisdom elected a broader, less-sectarian coalition. But the Obama administration, bizarrely working in tandem with Iran, brokered a deal that allowed Maliki to continue and has worked with him as an ally against al-Qaeda. Maliki’s coalition triumphed in April’s elections, but the balloting was boycotted by Sunnis.

Given Maliki’s sectarian and authoritarian style, a growing number of Iraq experts are questioning why the Obama administration continues to provide him billions in military aid — and is said to be weighing his plea for lethal Predator drones. The skeptics include some who were once among Maliki’s champions.

“I believe that Maliki has never had the energy or intent” to unify Iraq, says Derek Harvey, a professor at the University of South Florida who advises Centcom and is one of the leading U.S. experts on Iraq. “He was a bad choice in the beginning and our embrace of him was an error.”

A retired U.S. four-star commander asks in an interview: “How in the world can you keep betting on this number [Maliki] given what’s happened?” He believes Maliki is incapable of retaking the territory he has lost, and he wonders when Iran’s Quds Force will intervene to rescue Maliki’s collapsing army.


Maliki’s U.S.-trained army has suffered a series of crushing defeats, as Sunni insurgents from an offshoot of al-Qaeda captured the northern Sunni cities of Mosul and Tikrit and swept toward Baghdad. Already the Sunni extremists control most of western Iraq.

The Shiite-led Iraqi military has crumpled in battle, fleeing the battlefield and leaving behind tanks, Humvees and other vehicles. In cities such as Fallujah, cleared by American troops at great cost, al-Qaeda and its progeny are now dominant.

Maliki’s sectarian political style has helped create this disaster. He has gutted the army of the commanders he suspected of plotting against him. One U.S. expert likens him to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who purged the Red Army on the eve of World War II.

“He has replaced his generals with Shiite commanders who represent not competency, but political loyalty” to Maliki and his Dawa Party, says Harvey.

The victors belong to an extremist Sunni faction known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. These pitiless, battle-hardened fighters, remnants of what was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, have attracted jihadists from around the world. One of their most effective commanders in Mosul is said to have been a Georgian-born Chechen known as Omar al-Shishani. The Chechen was also a key ISIS commander in recent battles around the Syrian city of Aleppo — an illustration of the group’s potent cross-border reach.

ISIS forces have swept south along Highway 1 from Mosul, swelling their ranks by liberating 2,000 to 3,000 jihadist fighters from a prison in Nineveh province. The jihadists have captured so much U.S.-made equipment that it’s reportedly hard to distinguish friend from foe along the chaotic highway south.


Maliki’s forces are said to be drawing their battle lines just above a huge arms depot at Taji, about 20 miles north of Baghdad, which was a key U.S. logistics base during the American occupation, from 2003 to 2010. By consolidating his forces so far south, Maliki is, in effect, conceding the northern cities. Harvey argues that only the pesh merga fighters of Iraqi Kurdistan are strong enough to retake Mosul, but some experts doubt they would launch such a battle unless it was a prelude to a fully independent Kurdistan.

Senior Obama administration officials said Thursday they recognize that Maliki is seen by Iraqi Sunnis as a sectarian figure, and they are pressing him to expand his base in “unity government.” But they said there is no “conditionality” in the U.S. offer of military assistance and that the overriding goal short term is to help Malilki stop the Sunni extremists and prevent the fall of Baghdad.

As the fabric of the Middle East rips apart along sectarian lines, the United States and its allies face a fundamental strategic choice: Can they convene a regional peace conference — which would seek to reconcile Sunni and Shiite forces and their key backers, Saudi Arabia and Iran — in some new security architecture?

Restitching the fabric of Iraq and Syria may be Mission Impossible. But with its focus on counterterrorism and weapons supplies, the Obama administration seems to have decided to treat the region simply as a shooting gallery.

Remember another key fact.
Maliki was a Bushie selection. He screwed it up by not paying Sunnis w US $$$.
The troops to be left were trainers and not combatants. So what's the deal?

As I said,it was for the oil


It's your mess Rs . Clean it up yourselves


How many wars would we be in if thisbpuke and the airhead had won.

Jack2014

Here's your Iraq oil,reference. That is,if you can still read after your rant!
If you have guts,read it,and critique it.
Also ,you can Google Iraq oil-Maddow and get the UTube presentation.

Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart Rip Wrong on Iraq Republicans For Wanting War With Russia

By: Jason Easleymore from Jason Easley
Thursday, March, 6th, 2014, 11:52 am
20

In a segment that should be required viewing for every American who cares about the truth, Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow ripped Republicans who were wrong on Iraq for promoting war with Russia

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

Transcript:

RACHEL MADDOW: The Iraq war looms really large over all of the decisions that we make now about national security. Nobody really wants to go war with Russia over this Crimea thing, but if we did want to….

JON STEWART: Nobody? I’ve been watching the news.



MADDOW: Well, we are Ukrainians now, according to Senator McCain.

STEWART: It’s incredible too, how quickly they jump, and we listen to all of these individuals who were so wrong, led us so astray on the Iraq war, and their immediately on television with such great confidence. Ah, it’s been 48 hours, we’re so naive. Attack! The hubris has been incredible.

MADDOW: Yeah, and that’s because there hasn’t been accountability for the people who were wrong the first time. The people who said we ought to go. It’s not going to take very many people. It would pay for itself. Doesn’t matter that we’re not going to set up a government, Iraq will be right up on its feet. It will be a Jeffersonian democracy in the heart of the Middle East. I mean those guys got like. Paul Wolfowitz got to go like run the World Bank. Really? You shouldn’t be running a light rail system in a small town in a country other than this one that we don’t like. You can’t actually have credibility on national security issues. You can’t be Bill Kristol, for example, who’s banging the drums harder than anyone else that we ought to go to Iraq, and that it would work out great, and now banging the drums for any subsequent war, and shame on us for even asking their opinion.

STEWART: It always shocks me, when they go, we’ve got Dick Cheney on the line, and then you know, these guys are wrong about everything. And you just want somebody to say, you’ve been wrong about anything. I always say to you imagine going to work for eight years, and being wrong, and then towards the end of that time, shooting an old man in the face, and still people ask your opinion about things.

MADDOW: People ask your opinion specifically about like executive power, and the use of force, and lying to the American people. It’s tough. I feel like the reason why Iraq still looms over what we do is because it is kind of the original sin of the 21st Century, and until we reckon honestly with why we did it, we’re never going to escape that, and we owe to ourselves to get past it.

The reason why there has been no accountability is that the mainstream media played a big part is selling the Bush administration’s lies about the invasion of Iraq. In order for the media to hold Republicans accountable, they would first have to hold themselves accountable. It is much easier for the media to pretend that John McCain was never wrong, and to have him as a guest on various programs 11 times in seven days.

Telling John McCain that he is wrong about Iraq, would require the media to admit that they were wrong to have never challenged the previous administration’s war propaganda. Since the corporate media will never as an institution admit that they were wrong, Republicans who got everything totally wrong, not only get a free pass, but they have been promoted to exalted high guests on foreign policy issues.

The people who lied the nation into war and their media accomplices should be banished and never asked their opinion on these issues again. On matters of war and peace, John McCain, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, and other Bush foreign policy acolytes in the Republican Party and the media should never be asked for their opinions on these issues again.

Maddow and Stewart are two of the few media figures that keep reminding the American people of the deadly follies in the recent Republican led past. By trying to bury their mistakes Republicans are not only trying to whitewash their slate clean, but they are also setting the stage for a future repeat of their own unlearned lessons.
Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart Rip Wrong on Iraq Republicans For Wanting War With Russia was written by Jason Easley for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Thu, Mar 6th, 2014 — All Rights Reserved


You may also be interested in...

Rachel Maddow Calls Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,… On The Daily Show, Rachel Maddow had a classic line when she labeled Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, "a troll."
The Ultimate ‘Dick’ Move: Cheney Blames Hillary… In a mind-blowing display of arrogance, war criminal Dick Cheney said that Hillary Clinton should be held responsible for Benghazi.
Speaking of Hubris, This is the Reason Why Republicans Hate… The real reason why Republicans hate Chuck Hagel is that he was one of the few elected officials on either side of the aisle who had the courage and conviction to speak his mind on the Iraq invasion.
With Sean Hannity Getting Stomped In the Ratings Fox News… Since election day Rachel Maddow has been beating Sean Hannity in the key demo ratings, so Fox News has responded with a juvenile attack on Maddow.
CNN Will Continue To Fail Because They Refuse To Listen To… For ten years, Jon Stewart has been telling CNN what's wrong with their network, and they have responding doing the very things that caused their downfall. Things like reviving Crossfire.

Jack2014

M, when your hot your hot!

They still try very hard to whitewash this brainless puke


Jack S. Loves thisbone

Jack2014

Speak,English! Who are you referring to?