|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
As the war against the Islamic State as an entity controlling territory comes to a close in Iraq, control over territories disputed between the Iraqi central government and the Iraqi Kurdistan regional government (KRG) has come to the forefront. Forces officially affiliated with the Baghdad government, as well as militias aligned with it on this issue, have taken control of several key disputed sites, including Kirkuk city and Sinjar, which were previously held by Kurdish forces. While it initially seemed that the aim of the operations was just to assert the boundaries that existed prior to the Islamic State surge of 2014, there are indications the rollback may go as far as the 2003 boundaries. What is the root of this crisis? And what, if anything, should be the U.S. role?
Inevitably, much commentary has taken on a moralistic tone, lamenting a supposed U.S. abandonment of the Kurds to the Iranians and their clients, or getting into arguments about whether places like Kirkuk are actually Kurdish. The issue at hand, though, is not so much right or wrong over who should control which area as strategic failure.
The root of this crisis lies in the miscalculation by Masoud Barzani and his Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), who rule in the KRG capital of Arbil, to insist on going ahead with the unilateral independence referendum last month. It was clear from the outset why the referendum in the present circumstances was problematic. Holding the referendum unilaterally in disputed territories, for example, was sure to provoke a wide spectrum of local Iraqi opposition transcending many sectarian boundaries, including not only Sunni and Shi’a Arabs but also many members of Iraqi minorities such as the Turkmen and Yezidis (the latter not necessarily identifying as ethnically Kurdish, despite speaking the Kurdish language).
Spectator
|
|
|
Was only a matter of time before Trump was proven wrong on that one. It was obvious that there were others who could corroborate the Congresswoman's story, and that they would be contacted by the media.
A good rule of thumb is that if Trump has made a claim, you should NOT be banking on it turning out to be true.
|
Here's TPM's writeup of the widow talking about what happened on the call. Some pointers:
-She says Wilson's description is correct, that Trump did say "he knew what he signed up for," and that the tone and context upset her.
-She says Trump either didn't remember her husband's name, or at least struggled to remember (I'm not sure which), and that also upset her.
-She says the military hasn't let her see her husband's remains or told her circumstances of her husband's death.
Of these, the first two seemed pretty obvious already, but iirc Danglars (and probably a few others) were holding out for the widow's account of things, so here it is. My assumption before this was that Kelly told Trunp to say the stuff he described in that press conference, but Trump lacked the sensitivity and tact to express it in a comforting rather than callous way; then he lied andlashed out when he got called on it (like he always does). That seems to have been a good assumption.
I have trouble seeing how Trump can be seen as winning on this one. Widows can be politically motivated too, of course, especially widows that are friends with Democratic congresswomen, so he could claim the widow's a liar too. But who would believe that if they're not already firmly locked into the mindset that Trump is Right and anything that contradicts him is Fake News? Kelly's testimony seemed to offer the possibility that Wilson's description was technically accurate but in context, Trump's words were actually comforting and appropriate - but that would depend entirely on whether the widow found them comforting and appropriate, and she didn't. In the meantime we learned that Trump lied about having called families for all the soldiers that died under his administration; in fact, they hadn't even all gotten letters, because his administration didn't even have an up-to-date list.
The third point seems weird. I have no idea how normal it is for the military to not tell the family circumstances of the death or let them see the body. It sounds suspicious as hell, but maybe there's a good reason for it?
|
I argued 72 hours. But we are now at 5 days into this shitfest so I was off. He double downed and dragged this one out for the full week. I expected him to do his hate tweet where he concedes he was full of shit by now. If he is going to punch back, Trump's only response now would be to strike back at the widow openly, instead of by subtweet. If Hannity runs a special tonight on "Myeisha Johnson, communist and Obama deep state sympathizer?", then I fully expect Trump to blurt out that she was telling the truth coupled with some kind of nonsensical personal attack.
EDIT: it is worth remembering that Trump researches 0% of his own insults. Trump's only source of information is Cable News on TV since he doesn't read. Thus, all his insults must come from the AM Radio --> Fox & Friend pipeline. There hasn't been a smear job on Myeisha Johnson yet so Trump can't launch into a personal attack on her that concedes the truth of Rep. Wilson and Myeisha's statements. The Twitter trolls are pushing something along the lines of the GoFundMe and $$$ motives.
|
|
|
On October 24 2017 01:49 ChristianS wrote:Here's TPM's writeup of the widow talking about what happened on the call. Some pointers: -She says Wilson's description is correct, that Trump did say "he knew what he signed up for," and that the tone and context upset her. -She says Trump either didn't remember her husband's name, or at least struggled to remember (I'm not sure which), and that also upset her. -She says the military hasn't let her see her husband's remains or told her circumstances of her husband's death. Of these, the first two seemed pretty obvious already, but iirc Danglars (and probably a few others) were holding out for the widow's account of things, so here it is. My assumption before this was that Kelly told Trunp to say the stuff he described in that press conference, but Trump lacked the sensitivity and tact to express it in a comforting rather than callous way; then he lied andlashed out when he got called on it (like he always does). That seems to have been a good assumption. I have trouble seeing how Trump can be seen as winning on this one. Widows can be politically motivated too, of course, especially widows that are friends with Democratic congresswomen, so he could claim the widow's a liar too. But who would believe that if they're not already firmly locked into the mindset that Trump is Right and anything that contradicts him is Fake News? Kelly's testimony seemed to offer the possibility that Wilson's description was technically accurate but in context, Trump's words were actually comforting and appropriate - but that would depend entirely on whether the widow found them comforting and appropriate, and she didn't. In the meantime we learned that Trump lied about having called families for all the soldiers that died under his administration; in fact, they hadn't even all gotten letters, because his administration didn't even have an up-to-date list. The third point seems weird. I have no idea how normal it is for the military to not tell the family circumstances of the death or let them see the body. It sounds suspicious as hell, but maybe there's a good reason for it?
It isn't uncommon. It depends on a lot of factors, included what they were doing. They also might not know enough to say without it being speculation. It is a combat zone after all. Not seeing the body is odd, but who knows what shape in came back in.
This mess sounds like something the Senate is going to dig into. People didn't know we were in Niger and we are there because of the anti-terror authorization back from 2001.
|
Not seeing the remains I can't comment on but not being told the circumstances comes with special forces engaged in classified missions as far as I'm concerned.
|
United States13132 Posts
On October 24 2017 02:01 Gorsameth wrote:
Not seeing the remains I can't comment on but not being told the circumstances comes with special forces engaged in classified missions as far as I'm concerned.
If the reports that he was left behind and then the remains retrieved are accurate then I suspect that the military thinks it is better she sees nothing than what really happened. I don't agree with that personally, but I can understand why.
|
I bet if she pushed hard enough, she could have seen the body. And from experience, it is likely better she didn't see it if he was unrecognizable. That stuff haunts people and sends their imaginations to awful places.
|
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-now-investigating-democratic-lobbyist-tony-podesta-n812776
WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.
The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta's company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine's image in the West.
The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort's role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.
Take all the scumbags out of the picture. Please.
|
The Podestas are all kinda rotten and I would not mind seeing them go away, loss of Democratic fundraising/lobbying notwithstanding.
|
yeah no complaints here with Podesta being shown the door.
|
not to be confused with his brother John, who was wrapped up in the email scandal.
and yea whatever, i don’t have too much sympathy available for most lobbyists.
|
What is that line from the Wire about following the money can lead investigators anywhere?
I, for one, will be happy for fewer entrenched lobbying firms whispering in the Democrat’s ears.
|
On October 24 2017 02:53 brian wrote:
not to be confused with his brother John, who was wrapped up in the email scandal.
and yea whatever, i don’t have too much sympathy available for most lobbyists.
My impression is that political families are mostly a single entity where, whether involved or not, everyone has a rough idea as to what the others are up to. The whole corruption stuff definitely puts a sour taste in my mouth.
|
On October 24 2017 02:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2017 02:53 brian wrote:
not to be confused with his brother John, who was wrapped up in the email scandal.
and yea whatever, i don’t have too much sympathy available for most lobbyists. My impression is that political families are mostly a single entity where, whether involved or not, everyone has a rough idea as to what the others are up to. The whole corruption stuff definitely puts a sour taste in my mouth.
isn't that often kind of true of families in general?
that they at least have a rough idea on who's up to what, and generally know if others are breaking the law in various ways?
|
Remember the good old days when candidates had to struggle to get money to run for president and needed federal assistance? And they barely made it past the finish line while going deep into the red.
|
On October 24 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:
Remember the good old days when candidates had to struggle to get money to run for president and needed federal assistance? And they barely made it past the finish line while going deep into the red.
no, whne was that? I know that program has been around for awhile; and I recall people passing up the federal money for a few cycles now, not sure what's the last time someone used it, and it sounds like a neat factoid.
|
On October 24 2017 03:00 Plansix wrote:
Remember the good old days when candidates had to struggle to get money to run for president and needed federal assistance? And they barely made it past the finish line while going deep into the red.
If only we just removed money from the equation all together. Would make it simple to see if someone was getting shady money because any money would be illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
