UPDATED: Obama: Iraq Is Going To Need Help From Us
Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2014, 11:03 AM - Edit history (2)
Source: TPM
CATHERINE THOMPSON JUNE 12, 2014, 1:08 PM EDT
President Barack Obama said Thursday that Iraq is "going to need more help" from the US to fight back a militant group that has already taken over two cities and vowed to march on to Baghdad.
"What we've seen in the last couple of days indicates the degree to which Iraq's going to need more help," Obama said following a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the White House. "It's going to need more help from us and it's going to need more help from the international community."
Obama said that his administration has been working closely with the Iraqi government over the past several months, at times providing military equipment or intelligence assistance. He wouldn't rule out any options in addressing the Iraqi insurgency, he added.
"We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either Iraq or Syria for that matter," he said.
###
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-iraq-will-need-us-help
UPDATE:
Obama: US Will Send Help To Beleaguered Iraq
JULIE PACE AND LARA JAKES JUNE 13, 2014, 10:14 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) Less than three years after pulling American forces out of Iraq, President Barack Obama is weighing a range of short-term military options, including airstrikes, to quell an al-Qaida inspired insurgency that has captured two Iraqi cities and threatened to press toward Baghdad.
"We do have a stake in making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold," Obama said Thursday in the Oval Office.
However, officials firmly ruled out putting American troops back on the ground in Iraq, which has faced resurgent violence since the U.S. military withdrew in late 2011. A sharp burst of violence this week led to the evacuation Thursday of Americans from a major air base in northern Iraq where the U.S. had been training security forces.
Obama, in his first comments on the deteriorating situation, said it was clear Iraq needed additional assistance from the U.S. and international community given the lightning gains by the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Republican lawmakers pinned some of the blame for the escalating violence on Obama's reluctance to re-engage in a conflict he long opposed.
more
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/us-to-send-help-to-iraq
global1
(25,168 posts)Thank you BushCo for your illegal wars that have created this situation.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)global1
(25,168 posts)If we're going to do anything with this situation and if it's going to cost us money - put it to the Repubs - to pay for it - we need to close corporate loopholes and raise taxes on the top echelon of this country. Otherwise - we don't do anything.
They are trying to say that Obama is asleep at the wheel here and are going to blame him for this escalation. Let them put their money where their mouth is. If they don't want to go along with funding it this way - then place the onus back on them.
I'm tired of us fighting other people's wars. This is an internal conflict in Iraq. We left the country - having trained their people to fight their own wars. If the Iraqi government can't control the situation - that's their problem. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Thank you BushCo.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)zonkers
(5,865 posts)warrant46
(2,205 posts)Former President George W. Bush unveiled his presidential library April 25 to a beaming crowd of supporters. It was, as former President Bill Clinton called it, "the latest, grandest example of the eternal struggle of former presidents to rewrite history."
If there's one day in particular Bush could choose to rewrite, it might be May 1, 2003.
After landing, Bush changed out of his combat suit and stepped up to the podium, surrounded by a crowd as receptive as the one in Dallas last week.
Having marched U.S. troops through Iraq and deposed of Saddam Hussein's regime (and his statue), Bush called Operation Iraqi Freedom "a job well done."
totodeinhere
(13,037 posts)The president said today that he does not rule out air strikes. If we do resort to airstrikes that is a military involvement and it a form of getting sucked in. If we try airstrikes and they are not effective what do we try next? As always it s a slippery slope.
pocoloco
(3,180 posts)we can stuff in a cargo plane again?
msongs
(67,199 posts)gussmith
(280 posts)Any fool could have foreseen that our training of Iraqi and Afghanstan soldiers was totally a pipe dream. Before that, any fool could have foreseen that our staying would have no positive result. Let's vote on our 'wars' in the future.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)More refuges, more war, more death just means More for some, less for others
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(56,897 posts)totodeinhere
(13,037 posts)paints pictures of flowers someone else is left to try to clean it all up. And it won't be easy.
Response to AzDar (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to hrmjustin (Reply #23)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)totodeinhere
(13,037 posts)Iraq then it's his mess. But having said that, I don't think that Obama will do something that stupid.
Response to totodeinhere (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)always blames the LAST President for military usage in other countries. If Obama goes in there, he will be blamed and it will change the 2016 election outcome irrespective of anything else happening between now and then. I cannot believe he is even considering it. Or is there something deeper going on here and is Iran involved?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Defend Iraq from the Al Qaida and ISIS rebels we were arming to destabilize Syria? What did we do now? Yeah Bush let the genie out of the bottle. All those free floating weapons and artillery. And bring back all the new surveillance command and control technology to US police departments along with thousands of unstable, scarred soldiers. Throw in The Patriot Act and all that 911 fear...wow. He ruined here and there. Now Obama should get that tech off people's backs at home, treat these vets and maybe realize that arming Syrian opposition militants is a bad idea.
babylonsister
(170,963 posts)And I find it rather strange that you're defending dimson here.
24601
(3,940 posts)would have happened. First my personal comments then the link and information.
My take: Pretty much every every senator wanting to keep a presidential run in their future voted for the AUMF. This included those who I believe really opposed it (including Senators Biden, Clinton & Kerry) but made their presidential ambitions their top priority. How many actually went to the Capitol's secure facility & read the intelligence? Most never bother to do so.
The following information comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq: [I added the numbers and whether in retrospect it was true]
1. Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. [true]
2. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." [not true]
3. Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." [true]
4. Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". [capability was not true, willingness true but required capabilities]
5. Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by
a. the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush [true] and
b. firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. [true]
6. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. [not true]
7. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. [true]
8. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. [true]
9. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. [true, but not relevant in Iraq with respect to al-Qaeda]
10. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. [true, but not relevant in Iraq with respect to al-Qaeda]
11. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. [true]
12. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. [true - it was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton]
The Congressional Votes:
United States House of Representatives
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 48 1 0 0
Democratic 29 21 0 0
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 77 23 0 0
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting against the Democratic majority include: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
[added by me - Senate rules prohibit filibuster on AUMF resolutions.
Also, the Iraq AUMF was passed when Democrats, along with the ind. Jeffords had a majority in the Senate.
Republicans had a slim majority in the House of Representatives and did not have sufficient votes to pass the AUMF without Democratic votes - but the two Republican no votes were probably held in reserve if needed to reach the required 217]
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)avoiding a war.....unfortunately Bushco was not being reasonable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Posted: 06/10/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/aumf-repeal-bill-war-powers_n_3416689.html
Obama signed NDAA since vetoing it would have left the AUMF in force:
The House Will Vote To Repeal 2001 Authorization To Use Military Force
Schiffs proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is deceptive in how brief it is. Just six lines long, the amendment set for debate on the House floor on Wednesday calls for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in 2001 to finally sunset. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (50 U.S.C. 1541 note; Public Law 1075 40) is hereby repealed, the legislative text reads. This section shall take effect on the date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Thats the entirety of the amendment. But should those thirty-one words be added to the NDAA, the effect would be extremely wide reaching, erasing the scope of the sixty words that it would be replacing in the way that the United States conducts operations against terrorists overseas. In the years after Congress hastily passed the 2001 AUMF, both the Bush and Obama administrations have used it to conduct operations in places like Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia where no declaration of war exists, but the local government allows the presence of special operators, unmanned drones, and missile strikes on their soil. Pulling back on that ability has been the goal of many almost since the AUMF was put into place, but now the landscape appears to be shifting away from those who would rather keep it intact...
The debate over Schiffs amendment comes nearly one year exactly after President Obama pledged in a wide-ranging speech on national security that he would work closely with Congress to refine, and ultimately repeal the AUMF. Groups like [Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula] must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States, Obama said at the time. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we dont need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/05/21/3440156/schiff-aumf-ndaa/
It's been spun to appear PBO is dying to go to war. If I had proof the neo-cons helped to pull this latest crime spree off, I'd post it. Their fast track war making power ends December 31, 2014. You know they're getting hysterical.
And see here:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/44327/aumf-repeal-obama-once-again-stands-up-for-democracy
Going to be a gruesome media cycle through the elections and beyond year, just the same as they pulled to get the Tea Party in 2010.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)sakabatou
(42,083 posts)superdem1984
(2 posts)this ....
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Baclava
(12,047 posts)Iran has sent elite troops to Iraq to assist the country's government against al Qaeda-inspired rebels
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101754226
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)They did it before in the 80s. Millions died. Human wave attacks, nerve gas...all that sort of stuff.
The House of Saud is very rich, very smart and completely without principle. They have the advantage of large size and tradition of choosing smart guys to lead them. They also have more outmarriage then the really inbred tribes of the middle east. Bandar bin Sultan (bastard of the crown prince and an african slave is a great example of this.)
The US is too naive.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)roamer65
(36,739 posts)Same demographics. Majority Arab Shi'a. The Iranians will defend them, even if it means an invasion.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)We should not have gone before. We don't need to now.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)olddad56
(5,732 posts)LLD
(136 posts)Should take care of a good amount of the enemy.
1Greensix
(111 posts)I think I recall about 2002 when protesters were trying to tell the world that Bush and Cheney were lying and removing Saddam by force would lead to militant extremists grabbing power. So. They were right. Iraq cost the US a couple of Trillion dollars, a few thousand dead and tens of thousands wounded and what did we get out of it besides gas prices that tripled.
And now, one more time, the US is thinking about using force to engage the latest CIA identified threat. The CIA has PROVEN that they can NOT be trusted when it comes to Iraq. They LIED to get the US to invade. Lied! And now, Cry Wolf, they say the ISIS is the new enemy threat.
I wonder which Saudi Prince is funding this group of murdering assholes? Did the CIA fund them in the first place and now they are out of control, like the swell job they did arming and training the future Taliban in Afghanistan, giving us Bin Laden twenty years later?
I'm just getting too old for this crap. Do I really care which group of anti-American Muslims are in charge of Iraq? One group Hates Americans and the other group Hates Americans. If they are bent on killing each other, and they are, then why should I care? Eventually the power will swing the other way and the killing will continue, but the other group that Hates Americans will dominate for a while.
When they get tired of killing each other they will stop. Tell me why I should care if any of them live when THEY don't care?
The US has wasted trillions in Iraq. Let the people who live there fight for their own freedoms. If they don't care to have freedom and aren't willing to stop their hatred of each other, it's none of our business.
kiranon
(1,727 posts)then Saudi Arabia will stop funding the Islamist extremists. Because the House of Saud is next in line to fall - of it's own duplicity. It all started with Bush/Cheney and "Shock and Awe" Rumsfeld. There is no way to put the pieces of Iraq back together again.
4Q2u2
(1,406 posts)I hope he has a mouse in his pocket when he is talking about "US".
We already gave at the Office.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)Glorfindel
(9,706 posts)when Bush & Cheney invaded. It still isn't. Please, God, keep us away from that putrid hellhole.
get the red out
(13,459 posts)THIS!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)really gone to help, but our government didn't, and if they go in again, it will not be for the welfare of the Iraqi people or anything of the sort.
It will be to create a safe environment for oil companies to operate.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Obama: Iraq needs U.S., international help as ISIS threatens to seize more cities
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/iraq-violence/
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Let China help them out. They are getting all of the oil.
It is time for us to let the hellhole be the hellhole. If they want to kill one another so much the better. At some point you can't help stupid. If the Iraqi military put down their guns and ran away as some news reports are suggesting then the Iraqis have one another to blame.
Al Maliki has refused to include the Sunni in his government in any appreciable way. That tension gives room for outside terrorist interests. Al Maliki has done this to himself.
No, no second round on this. If the country goes up in flames it will just be a big bonfire. But I am opposed to spending one penny saving them from themselves.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)And go get drunk tonite. Kiss your spouse and give your kids a squeeze.
You are out the door.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)He just joined last year. He is being trained to work on the new F-35s. Shit.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Why do we even sell them weapons
pampango
(24,692 posts)this one.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Odd world we live in.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)Why have we allowed our "allies" there to fund these extremists?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Period.
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)warrior1
(12,325 posts)As well as all of the other warmongers.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Any more military quagmires will result in such an event as stated above.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,485 posts)but tough shit................I was against the IRW in 2003 and I'm against putting anybody back in there in 2014. It's too late to resurrect the ones who sacrificed everything for a lie, but why would we agree to send more into the jaws of death?
roamer65
(36,739 posts)They will start accepting other currencies for oil in retaliation.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,029 posts)twice already?
Oh yeah 3rd times a charm.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)Since *dimson* declared they are sovereign, being sovereign means they must deal with their own consequences.
That's it.
Do not make the same mistakes TWICE.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)That of course, in 1984 speak is not what will be happening
reflection
(6,286 posts)We might be able to solve two problems at once, but I imagine it would be only one, since they probably fight about as well as they govern.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Like we "helped them" before?
If this idiotic idea doesn't set off riots in this country, I am sure I don't know what will.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I think the media is trying to start up another false drama.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I hear the sound of a hungry MIC foaming at the mouth with the thought of millions and millions and millions of sweet taxpayer dollars flowing their way like rain falling from the sky on a parched desert landscape.
It never ends folks, never.
If the President and reich wing repubs alike demand it fine. Before a single million dollar missile is fired, raise taxes to pay for the next grand Iraq adventure. Lets see how much the baggers love war when they actually got to pay for it out of their own damned pockets!
Course that wont do anything for the poor kids caught in the economic draft who will die saving people who hate our guts anyway but if baggers have to pay, they probably wont want to play!
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,809 posts)Make that fuck no, hell no, shit no, bloody fucking HELL NO! Good God, do they never learn or listen?
As Pete Seeger sings "when will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?" (Where Have All the Flowers Gone, which is one of the most haunting anti-war songs ever and which would likely get a modern singer thrown out and charged with treason nowadays).