The "chicken-hawks" (the ones who are now war-hawks, after using various nefarious means to avoid being sent to Vietnam...Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.), are coming out of the shadows, to blame Obama for the mess they created in Iraq, with their lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction). They are directly responsible for the deaths of close to 5,000 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, as well as over 32,000 Americans badly wounded and also countless Iraqis and millions displaced, infrastructure destroyed and a country beset with violence and a breeding ground for terrorism. They undermined the American Constitution, lied to the American people and caused a conflagration which now threaten to consume the Middle East and drag the world back into this cauldron of death and destruction. Now they have the gall to blame Obama for this disaster that they created. Wolfowitz was the one who told Congress in 2003, that Saddam has WMD; that there will be no Sunni/Shia violence and that oil profits will pay for the war and for after-war reconstruction. All have benn proven to be false.
Bush's lap-dog, Tony Blair has been yapping also. He was complicit in all that Bush did, going along with the lies and even adding to them ( telling the world that we are only "minutes" away from Saddam's weapons. He even lied/ hid the fact that he was Catholic, from the British people, while he was Prime Minister). Now he and Cheney and Wolfowitz and their cronies, some whom benefitted from contracts they got for the rebuilding of Iraq ( first you destroy it and then you make money, billions, rebuilding it), are once again lying and blame-placing.
The recent success of ISIL and the continuing civil war in Syria is raising the spectre of a conflagration in the region, fanned by Sunni/Shia enmity. 60% of the population of Iraq are Shia; Assad's Alewite, an off-shoot of Shia is in power in Syria and both are supported by the Iranians, who are also Shia ( and so is Hizballah in Lebanon). Saudi Arabia is leading the Sunni support for the rebels in Syria and have been pushing for American intervention, but so far Obama has resisted. Now however the dynamics have changed with the success of ISIL. Now there is pressure on Obama to intervene on the side of the Shias in Iraq, to stop ISIL, but this is fraught with danger, especially for American "boots " on the ground. It will stir up a hornets nest and incite terrorist attacks from not just from al Qaeda, but others associated and sympathetic to the Sunni cause. Of course, drone attacks can be used, but it will be very difficult to pinpoint ISIL and its leadership due to their not being concentrated in one place and the lack of human intelligence on the ground.
There is another option, but one that will face fierce opposition from the Republicans, (especially blowhards like McCain and his "buddy" Graham. Don't you love the way they echo each other, in lock-step?), Saudi Srabia and Israel. This option is to work with Iran. Iran will supply the ground forces and the USA and whatever allies, it can muster, can supply the air strikes and satellite surveillance. al Maliki has asked for American help and Iran is quite willing to stop ISIL, which has made it clear that Iran is its next target. The Iranians can also help with Assad of Syria and Hizallah. It, Iran is the only stable country in the region and its power and influence can and should be used by Obama. Teher is no other alternative.
Bush's lap-dog, Tony Blair has been yapping also. He was complicit in all that Bush did, going along with the lies and even adding to them ( telling the world that we are only "minutes" away from Saddam's weapons. He even lied/ hid the fact that he was Catholic, from the British people, while he was Prime Minister). Now he and Cheney and Wolfowitz and their cronies, some whom benefitted from contracts they got for the rebuilding of Iraq ( first you destroy it and then you make money, billions, rebuilding it), are once again lying and blame-placing.
The recent success of ISIL and the continuing civil war in Syria is raising the spectre of a conflagration in the region, fanned by Sunni/Shia enmity. 60% of the population of Iraq are Shia; Assad's Alewite, an off-shoot of Shia is in power in Syria and both are supported by the Iranians, who are also Shia ( and so is Hizballah in Lebanon). Saudi Arabia is leading the Sunni support for the rebels in Syria and have been pushing for American intervention, but so far Obama has resisted. Now however the dynamics have changed with the success of ISIL. Now there is pressure on Obama to intervene on the side of the Shias in Iraq, to stop ISIL, but this is fraught with danger, especially for American "boots " on the ground. It will stir up a hornets nest and incite terrorist attacks from not just from al Qaeda, but others associated and sympathetic to the Sunni cause. Of course, drone attacks can be used, but it will be very difficult to pinpoint ISIL and its leadership due to their not being concentrated in one place and the lack of human intelligence on the ground.
There is another option, but one that will face fierce opposition from the Republicans, (especially blowhards like McCain and his "buddy" Graham. Don't you love the way they echo each other, in lock-step?), Saudi Srabia and Israel. This option is to work with Iran. Iran will supply the ground forces and the USA and whatever allies, it can muster, can supply the air strikes and satellite surveillance. al Maliki has asked for American help and Iran is quite willing to stop ISIL, which has made it clear that Iran is its next target. The Iranians can also help with Assad of Syria and Hizallah. It, Iran is the only stable country in the region and its power and influence can and should be used by Obama. Teher is no other alternative.
