Monday, November 16, 2015

The Origin of ISIS 

The U.S. created the current instability in the Middle-East. We deposed the democratically elected president of Iran and replaced him with the Shah, who we strongly supported, leading to their 1979 revolution.

We armed, trained, and funded Al Qaeda (Osama Bin Laden) and the Taliban during the Russian-Afghanistan War, effectively making them what they became. We invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein. There is absolutely no question about our role in creating ISIS.

During the second Democratic debate on November 14, 2015, when the candidates were discussing the troubled Middle-East and the recent attacks by ISIS, Bernie Sanders said: "I am not a great fan of regime change." (The transcript from that part of the debate is further below.)

Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush should have listened to people like Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley back then. George W. Bush and Co. still claims Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and George W. Bush's brother won't admit his brother made a mistake (as Dick Cheney and friends profited from the war while sticking the American taxpayers with trillions in debt.)

Hillary Clinton now says she made a "mistake" by voting to invade Iraq, but she and people like Jeb Bush are also saying that we should trust them now.

Since withdrawing our troops from Iraq, starting in 2009 President Obama (who was against invading Iraq) has only made things worse by his policy of funding and training Syrian "freedom fighters" (rebels) — because it's THEY who became ISIS — and they wouldn't have existed without the power vacuum left in the wake of toppling Saddam Hussein (who was also a counter-force to Iran).

Hillary Clinton's argument was, there were Islamic jihadist terrorists before the war in Iraq (Yes, but we made it a whole lot worse.)

Iraq (now Syria): We broke it, but no one has a clear answer as to how we can fix it. Former CIA director Leon Panetta says it might take the US getting involved in a 30-year war to destroy ISIS. (I'll bet the CEOs in the defense industry are licking their big fat chops over this news!)

We have "Charlie Wilson's War" to blame for 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq for the thousands upon thousands of lives lost and destroyed. You'd think we'd have learned our lesson from Vietnam (which Bernie Sanders was also against).

Saddam Hussein's army, decimated by our invasion, became unemployed, disenfranchised and desperate — and found a place with ISIS.

The two short videos below explains how we created this new mess and the current chaos we now face.

From the second Democratic debate on November 14, 2015:

MODERATOR JOHN DICKERSON: The terror attacks last night [in Paris, France] underscores the biggest challenge facing the next president of the United States. At a time of crisis, the country and the world look to the president for leadership and for answers. So, Secretary Clinton, I'd like to start with you. Hours before the attacks, President Obama said, "I don't think ISIS is gaining strength." Seventy-two percent of Americans think the fight against ISIS is going badly. Won't the legacy of this administration, which is-- which you were a part of, won't that legacy be that it underestimated the threat from ISIS?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, John, I think that we have to look at ISIS as the leading threat of an international terror network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated. There is no question in my mind that if we summon our resources, both our leadership resources and all of the tools at our disposal, not just military force, which should be used as a last resort, but our diplomacy, our development aid, law enforcement, sharing of intelligence in a much more open and cooperative way -- that we can bring people together. But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the president has consistently said-- which I agree with-- is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS. That is why we have troops in Iraq that are helping to train and build back up the Iraqi military, why we have special operators in Syria working with the Kurds and Arabs, so that we can be supportive. But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.

DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton, the question was about, was ISIS underestimated? And I'll just add, the president referred to ISIS as the JVU (sic), in a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in June of 2014 said, "I could not have predicted the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq." So you've got prescriptions for the future, but how do we even those prescript prescriptions are any good if you missed it in the past?

CLINTON: Well, John, look, I think that what happened when we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush made with the Iraqis to leave by 2011, is that an Iraqi army was left that had been trained and that was prepared to defend Iraq. Unfortunately, Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, set about decimating it. And then, with the revolution against Assad -- and I did early on say we needed to try to find a way to train and equip moderates very early so that we would have a better idea of how to deal with Assad because I thought there would be extremist groups filling the vacuum. So, yes, this has developed. I think that there are many other reasons why it has in addition to what happened in the region, but I don't think that the United States has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.

DICKERSON: Okay, Governor O'Malley, would you critique the administration's response to ISIS. If the United States doesn't lead, who leads?

MARTIN O'MALLEY: John, I would disagree with Secretary Clinton respectfully on this score. This actually is America's fight. It cannot solely be America's fight. America is best when we work in collaboration with our allies. America is best when we are actually standing up to evil in this world. And ISIS, make no mistake about it, is an evil in this world. ISIS has brought down a Russian airliner. ISIS has now attacked a western democracy in -- in France. And we do have a role in this. Not solely ours, but we must work collaboratively with other nations. The great failing of these last 10 or 15 years, John, has been our failing of human intelligence on the ground. Our role in the world is not to roam the globe looking for new dictators to topple. Our role in the world is to make ourselves a beacon of hope. Make ourselves stronger at home, but also our role in the world, yes, is also to confront evil when it rises. We took out the safe haven in Afghanistan, but now there is, undoubtedly, a larger safe haven and we must rise to this occasion in collaboration and with alliances to confront it, and invest in the future much better human intelligence so we know what the next steps are.

DICKERSON: Senator Sanders, you said you want to rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous debate you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?

BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world -- this is what the CIA says -- they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops ask you're going to see all kinds of international conflict. But, of course, international terrorism is a major issue that we have got to address today. And I agree with much of what the Secretary and the Governor have said. But let me have one area of disagreement with the Secretary. I think she said something like the bulk of the responsibility is not ours. Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of al-Qaeda and to ISIS. Now, in fact, what we have got to do -- and I think there is widespread agreement here -- is the United States cannot do it alone. What we need to do is lead an international coalition which includes very significantly the Muslim nations in that region who are going to have to fight and defend their way of life.

DICKERSON: Quickly, just let me ask you a follow-up on that, Senator Sanders. When you say the disastrous vote on Iraq, let's just be clear about what you're saying. You're saying Secretary Clinton, who was then Senator Clinton, voted for the Iraq war. And are you making a direct link between her vote for that or and what's happening now for ISIS. Just so everybody...

SANDERS: I don't think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now. I think that was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the more than history of the United States.

DICKERSON: Alright. Let's let Secretary Clinton respond to that.

CLINTON: Thank you, John. I think it's important we put this in historic context. The United States has, unfortunately, been victimized by terrorism going back decades. In the 1980s, it was in Beirut, Lebanon, under President Reagan's administration, and 258 Americans, marines, embassy personnel, and others were murdered. We also had attacks on two of our embassies in Tanzania, Kenya, when my husband was president. Again, Americans murdered. And then, of course, 9/11 happened, which happened before there was an invasion of Iraq. I have said the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But I think if we're ever going to really tackle the problems posed by jihadi extreme terrorism, we need to understand it and realize that it has antecedents to what happened in Iraq and we have to continue to be vigilant about it.

DICKERSON: Senator Sanders let me just follow this line of thinking. You criticized then, Senator Clinton's vote. Do you have anything to criticize in the way she performed as Secretary of State?

SANDERS: I think we have a disagreement, and the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the war in Iraq. If you look at history, John, you will find that regime change -- whether it was in the early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile, whether it is overthrowing the government of Guatemala way back when -- these invasions, these toppling of governments, regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue, I'm a little bit more conservative than the Secretary, and that I am not a great fan of regime change.

O'MALLEY: John, may I interject here? Secretary Clinton also said we -- it was not just the invasion of Iraq which Secretary Clinton voted for and has since said was a big mistake -- and, indeed, it was. But it was also the cascading effects that followed that. It was also the disbanding of many elements of the Iraqi army that are now showing up as part of ISIS. It was country after country without making the investment in human intelligence to understand who the new leaders were and the new forces were that are coming up. We need to be much more far thinking in this new 21st century era of -- of nation state failures and conflict. It's not just about getting rid of a single dictator. It is about understanding the secondary and third consequences that fall next.

DICKERSON: All right, Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: Well, of course, each of these cases needs to be looked at individually and analyzed. Part of the problem that we have currently in the Middle East is that Assad has hung on to power with the very strong support of Russia and Iran and with the proxy of Hezbollah being there basically fighting his battles. So I don't think you can paint with a broad brush. This is an incredibly complicated region of the world. It's become more complicated. And many of the fights that are going on are not ones that the United States has either started or have a role in. The Shi'a-Sunni split. The dictatorships have suppressed people's aspirations. The increasing globalization without any real safety valve for people to have a better life. We saw that in Egypt. We saw a dictator overthrown. We saw a Muslim brotherhood president installed, and then we saw him ousted and the army back. So, I think we've got to understand the complexity of the world that we are facing and no place is more so than in the Middle East.

DICKERSON: I understand. Quickly, Senator.

SANDERS: The Secretary's obviously right. It is enormously complicated. But here's something that I believe we have to do as we put together an international coalition, and that is we have to understand that the Muslim nations in the region -- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Jordan -- all of these nations, they're going to have to get their hands dirty, their boots on the ground. They are going to have to take on ISIS. This is a war for the soul of Islam. And those countries who are opposed to Islam, they are going to have to get deeply involved in a way that is not the case today. We should be supportive of that effort. So should the UK, so should France. But those Muslim countries are going to have to lead the effort. They are not doing it now.

DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton.

CLINTON: Well, I think that is very unfair to a few you mentioned, most particularly Jordan, which has put a lot on the line for the United States, has also taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria, and has been, therefore, subjected to threats and attacks by extremists themselves. I do agree that in particular, Turkey and the Gulf nations have got to make up their minds. Are they going to stand with us against this kind of jihadi radicalism or not? And there are many ways of doing it. They can provide forces. They can provide resources. But they need to be absolutely clear about where they stand.

DICKERSON: Let me ask you, Secretary Clinton, a question about leadership. We're talking about what role does America take? Let me ask you about Libya. So Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part because of the chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that suppose to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is have a plan for after?

CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful, fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland, but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact on what happens in a country like Libya.

DICKERSON: Governor O' Malley I want to ask you a question and you can add whatever you'd like to. But let me ask you, is the world too dangerous a place for a governor who has no foreign policy experience?

O' MALLEY: John, the world is a very dangerous place, but the world is not too dangerous of a place for the United States of America, provided we act according to our principles, provided we act intelligently. I mean, let's talk about this arc of instability that Secretary Clinton talked about. Libya is now a mess. Syria is a mess. Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. As Americans, we have shown ourselves to have the greatest military on the face of the planet, but we are not so very good at anticipating threats and appreciating just how difficult it is to build up stable democracies, to make the investments and sustainable development that we must as a nation if we are to attack the root causes of these sorts of instability. And I wanted to add one other thing, John, and I think it's important for all of us on this stage. I was in Burlington, Iowa. And a mom of a service member of ours who served two duties in Iraq said, Governor O' Malley, please, when you're with your other candidates and colleagues on stage, please don't use the term 'boots on the ground'. Let's don't use the term 'boots on the ground'. My son is not a pair of boots on the ground. These are American soldiers and we fail them when we fail to take into account what happens the day after a dictator falls and when we fail to act with a whole of government approach with sustainable development, diplomacy, and our economic power in alignment with our principles.

CLINTON: Well, I think it's perfectly fair to say that we invested quite a bit in development aid. Some of the bravest people that I had the privilege of working with as secretary of state were our development professionals who went sometimes alone, sometimes with our military, into very dangerous places in Iraq, in Afghanistan, elsewhere. So, there does need to be a whole of government approach, but just because we're involved and we have a strategy doesn't mean we're going to be able to dictate the outcome. These are often very long- term kinds of investments that have to be made.


SANDERS: When you talk about the long-term consequences of war, let's talk about the men and women who came home from war. The 500,000 who came home with PTSD, and traumatic brain injury. And I would hope in the midst of all of this discussion, this country makes certain that we do not turn our backs on the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us, and that we stand with them as they have stood with us.

DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton, you mentioned radical jihadists. Marco Rubio, also running for president, said that this attack showed and the attack in Paris showed that we are at war with radical Islam. Do you agree with that characterization, radical Islam?

CLINTON: I don't think we're at war with Islam. I don't think we're at war with all Muslims. I think we're at war with jihadists who have --

DICKERSON: Just to interrupt. He didn't say all Muslims. He just said radical Islam. Is that a phrase you don't...

CLINTON: I think that you can talk about Islamists who clearly are also jihadists, but I think it's not particularly helpful to make the case that Senator Sanders was just making that I agree with, that we've got to reach out to Muslim countries. We've got to have them be part of our coalition. If they hear people running for president who basically shortcut it to say we are somehow against Islam, that was one of the real contributions, despite all the other problems, that George W. Bush made after 9/11 when he basically said after going to a Mosque in Washington, we are not at war with Islam or Muslims. We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression. And, yes, we are at war with those people. But I don't want us to be painting with too broad a brush.

DICKERSON: The reason I ask is you gave a speech at Georgetown University in which you said, that it was important to show, quote, "respect, even for one's enemies. Trying to understand and in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view." Can you explain what that means in the context of this kind of barbarism?

CLINTON: I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it's very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect. Historically, it is important to try to understand your adversary in order to figure out how they are thinking, what they will be doing, how they will react. I plead that it's very difficult when you deal with ISIS and organizations like that whose behavior is so barbaric and so vicious that it doesn't seem to have any purpose other than lust for killing and power and that's very difficult to put ourselves in the other shoe.


DICKERSON: Just quickly, do either of you, radical Islam, do either of you use that phrase?

SANDERS: I don't think the term is what's important. What is important to understand is we have organizations, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaida, who do believe we should go back several thousand years. We should make women third-class citizens, that we should allow children to be sexually assaulted, that they are a danger to modern society. And that this world, with American leadership, can and must come together to destroy them. We can do that. And it requires an entire world to come together, including in a very active way, the Muslim nations.

DICKERSON: Governor O' Malley, you have been making the case when you talk about lack of forward vision, you're essentially saying that Secretary Clinton lacks that vision and this critique matches up with this discussion of language. The critique is that the softness of language betrays a softness of approach. So if this language -- if you don't call it by what it is, how can your approach be effective to the cause? that's the critique.

O' MALLEY: I believe calling it what it is, is to say radical jihadis. That's calling it what it is. But John, let's not fall into the trap of thinking that all of our Muslim American neighbors in this country are somehow our enemies here. They are our first line of defense. And we are going to be able to defeat ISIS on the ground there, as well as in this world, because of the Muslim Americans in our country and throughout the world who understand that this brutal and barbaric group is perverting the name of a great world religion. And now, like never before, we need our Muslim American neighbors to stand up and to -- and to be a part of this.

DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton, the French president has called this attack an act of war.


DICKERSON: A couple of days ago you were asked if you would declare war on ISIS and you said no. What would you say now?

CLINTON: Well, we have an authorization to use military force against terrorists. We passed it after 9/11.

DICKERSON: And you think that covers all of this?

CLINTON: It certainly does cover it. I would like to see it updated.

DICKERSON: If you were in the Senate, would you be okay with the commander in chief doing that without it coming back to you?

CLINTON: No, it would have to go through the Congress, and I know the White House has actually been working with members of Congress. Maybe now we can get it moving again so that we can upgrade it so that it does include all the tools and everything in our arsenal that we can use to try to work with our allies and our friends, come up with better intelligence. You know, it is difficult finding intelligence that is actionable in a lot of these places, but we have to keep trying. And we have to do more to prevent the flood of foreign fighters that have gone to Syria, especially the ones with western passports, that come back. So there's a lot of work we need to do and I want to be sure what's called the AUMF, has the authority that is needed going forward.

DICKERSON: Senator, let me just -- let's add to whatever you've got to say. Refugees. You've been a little vague on what you would do about the Syrian refugees. What's your view on them now?

SANDERS: Let me do that but let me pick up on an issue, a very important issue that we have not yet discussed. This nation is the most powerful military in the world. We're spending over $600 billion a year on the military and yet, significantly less than 10 percent of that money is used to be fighting international terrorism. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars maintaining 5,000 nuclear weapons. I think we need major reform in the military, making it more cost effective, but also focusing on the real crisis that faces us.

SANDERS: The Cold War is over. And our focus has got to be on intelligence, increased manpower, fighting internationally targets. So, in terms of refugees, I believe that the United States has the moral responsibility with Europe, with Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia to make sure that when people leave countries like Afghanistan and Syria with nothing more than the clothing on their back that, of course, we reach out. Now, what the magic number is, I don't know, because we don't know the extent of the problem. But I certainly think that the United States should take its full responsibility in helping those people.

DICKERSON: Governor O'Malley, you have a magic number. I think it's 65,000. Does that number go up or down based on what happened yesterday?

OMALLEY: John, I was the first person on this stage to say that we should accept the 65,000 Syrian refugees that were fleeing the sort of murder of ISIL, and I believe that that needs to be done with proper screening. But accommodating 65,000 refugees in our country today, people of 320 million, is akin to making room for 6.5 more people in a baseball stadium with 32,000. There are other ways to lead and to be a moral leader in this world, rather than at the opposite end of a drone strike. But I would want to agree with something that Senator Sanders says. The nature of warfare has changed. This is not a conflict where we send in the third divisions of Marines. This is a new era of conflict where traditional ways of huge standing armies are not as -- serve our purposes as well as special ops, better intelligence and being more proactive.

DICKERSON: Just very quickly, 65,000, the number stays?

OMALLEY: That's what I understand is the request from the international...

DICKERSON: But for you, what would you want?

OMALLEY: I would want us to take our place among the nations of the world to alleviate this sort of death and the specter we saw of little kids' bodies washing up on a beach.

DICKERSON: Secretary Clinton, let me ask you a question from twitter which has come in and this is a question on this issue of refugees. The question is, with the U.S. preparing to absorb Syrian refugees, how do you propose we screen those coming in to keep citizens safe?

CLINTON: I think that is the number one requirement. I also said that we should take increased numbers of refugees. The administration originally said 10. I said we should go to 65, but only if we have as careful a screening and vetting process as we can imagine, whatever resources it takes because I do not want us to, in any way, inadvertently allow people who wish us harm to come into our country. But I want to say a quick word about what Senator Sanders and then Governor O'Malley said. We do have to take a hard look at the defense budget and we do have to figure out how we get ready to fight the adversaries of the future, not the past. But we have to also be very clear that we do have some continuing challenges. We've got challenges in the South China Sea because of what China is doing in building up these military installations. We have problems with Russia. Just the other day, Russia allowed a television camera to see the plans for a drone submarine that could carry a tactical nuclear weapon. So we've got to look at the full range and then come to some smart decisions about having more streamlined and focused approach.

DICKERSON: Alright. Senator Sanders, I'm sorry. We're going to have to take a break now. We will have more of the Democratic debate here from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.



DICKERSON: Want to turn now from terrorism to another important issue for many Americans, the financial squeeze on the the middle class...

* Here's what happened during the debate when they discussed Wall Street.


  1. Articles from The Nation....

    What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters: They’re drawn to the movement for reasons that have little to do with belief in extremist Islam (By Lydia Wilson October 21, 2015)

    To Defeat ISIS, We Must Call Both Western and Muslim Leaders to Account: And that includes the Saudi kings whose funding of Wahhabi doctrine gave rise to the scourge of Islamic extremism. By Laila Lalami November 15, 2015)

    France Should Stop Listening to Saudi Arabia on Syria: ISIS is the most urgent threat to the West stemming from the Syrian war and must be destroyed. Assad’s murderous dictatorship can be dealt with next (By Juan Cole November 15, 2015)

    After the Paris Attacks, a Call for Justice—Not Vengeance: The years after September 11 are a powerful reminder that an “all-out war” on terror only creates more terrorism (By Phyllis Bennis November 14, 2015)

  2. From the Atlantic....

    What ISIS Really Wants: The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it (By Graeme Wood March 2015)

  3. The Nation (from an article that supports Hillary Clinton)

    Despite her formidable experience and judgment, as a New York senator Clinton made the wrong decision about the Iraq war in 2002 — a decision Sanders blamed for contributing to the rise of ISIS. As secretary of state, she backed the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi and supporting the Syrian rebels; both nations are now in chaos. Thus one of her best campaign assets is also her greatest liability, especially within the anti-war precincts of the Democratic base.

    Will her Iraq vote be disqualifying in 2016, as it was for many Democrats in 2008? This time around, she has admitted her vote was a mistake, and on Saturday night, she did it again. Clinton also resisted efforts to get her to take a hawkish stand on ISIS in the wake of the Paris attack.

    Dickerson confronted Clinton about President Obama’s contention last year that ISIS was the “JV,” and asked her if she felt she and the administration shared blame for underestimating ISIS. Clinton refused to bash her boss and focused on the way the ISIS threat has metastasized unexpectedly. But she did note her support for arming Syrian rebels four years ago—a difference with Obama—and defended her role in advocating that the United States back the Arab-states coalition that overthrew Qaddafi.

    Sanders challenged Clinton on more than just Iraq. “Regime changes have unintended consequences.”

    Sanders won points on the left for referring to the US role in overthrowing democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Allende’s Chile, among others, from the 1950s into the 1970s. And he’s right to note that such bloody meddling led to global resentment that for decades the United States routinely propped up or helped to restore dictatorships around the world.

    But the comparison was a little bit off, given the context. The removal of elected leaders in Iran, Guatemala and Chile can’t be compared to opposing Qaddafi or Bashar al-Assad (or even Saddam Hussein) — all brutal dictators intent on oppressing their own people and trying to dominate their neighbors, whose reign led to righteous resistance that has too often melded with Islamic extremism and terror.

    Complicating matters is the fact that Clinton was a skeptic of “regime change” in Egypt; she worried that deposing Hosni Mubarak would only lead to another form of authoritarianism, or an Islamist government. She was technically right, though her skepticism about the forces behind the Arab Spring didn’t win her friends among pro-democracy supporters.

  4. Everyone continues to slam Hiallry Clinton for invoking 9/11 to defend her coziness with Wall Street. The New York Times editorial board this morning says Clinton “botched” the question and her “badly muffled response” only “compounded the damage.” More from the editorial:

    “Nearly 15 years after the 2001 attacks, Mrs. Clinton was earning more than $200,000 for a 20-minute speech. Most of those took place behind guarded doors. But one can guess that she and the financial executives were not still talking about 9/11. Her effort to tug on Americans’ heartstrings instead of explaining her Wall Street ties — on a day that the scars of 9/11 were exposed anew — was at best botched rhetoric. At worst it was the type of cynical move that Mrs. Clinton would have condemned in Republicans.”

  5. From the Daily Beast...

    Confessions of an ISIS Spy: He joined the self-proclaimed Islamic State, trained jihadist infantry, and groomed foreign operatives—including a pair of Frenchmen. And now, Abu Khaled says he is ready to talk.

  6. ISIS: Rogue State or Organized Crime Gang/Mafia (By Bruce Webb | November 16, 2015)


    The Rashidun Caliphate

  7. Anonymous hackers' group declares war on ISIS

  8. ISIS wants deeper U.S. engagement in the country. Expanding the conflict may seem like a self-destructive move. But for some analysts it is squarely in keeping with what the group advertises as its overriding, apocalyptic mission: to lure the world’s unbelievers into Syria for a final, Armageddon-like battle. In the short term, the Islamic State is almost certainly betting that it can survive a counterattack.

    5 stories you should read to really understand the Islamic State

  9. Anonymous To Isis: We Will Never Let Up

  10. For The Record, Yes, George W. Bush Did Help Create ISIS

    "ISIS was created by the Iraqi coalition authority, which ousted the entire government of Iraq. It was when 30,000 individuals who are part of the Iraqi military were forced out. They had no employment, they had no income, yet they were left with access to all the same arms and weapons.”

    Jeb Bush is now saying: “Knowing what we know now, he [his brother] would not have invaded the country."

  11. Fine post Bud. I'd just like to say that this tragedy in paris plays right into the hands of the neo-liberal right wingers and 1%. It's classic divide and conquer of the working class by devoting countless media hours to a threat posed by jihadists. Just like communism was during Rayguns tenure, so now is the fight against radical islamists. It takes Bernie off message when there really is no need for that, but of course that fits in nicely with their plans. Hopefully this will blow over by the time the first votes are taken for the Democratic nominee. And, not for anything, assuming HRC wins and the fear mongering of the right continues to garner massive media attention, it could well spell the destruction of her presidential aspirations as the Rethuglicans will not hesitate to push this issue to it's most extreme. The radical right knows that the best way to get working class people to vote against their own best economic interests is to create some scary bogyman to take their attention away from their dire economic lives.

  12. Why are only just NOW bombing ISIS's oil trucks. Why didn't we do this 2 years ago?

  13. The fight against Islamist extremism has become more complicated than ever. Liz Sly, who has spent more than 15 years covering the Middle East, writes from Baghdad that “it may already be too late and too difficult … for any swift or easy solution to the tangled mess the Middle East has become…” From her dispatch on the front page:

    “What Jordan’s King Abdullah II referred to as a ‘third world war against humanity’ has, more accurately, become a jumble of overlapping wars driven by conflicting agendas in which defeating the Islamic State is just one of a number of competing and often contradictory policy pursuits. In those four years, four Arab states — Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen — have effectively collapsed. Civil wars are raging in all of them. World powers have lined up on different sides of those wars. And the chaos has given the heirs to the legacy of Osama bin Laden the greatest gift they could have hoped for: the gift of time and space.”

    The Brooking Institution’s Bruce Riedel says the challenge for the U.S. is vastly greater than right after 9/11: “We now face an enemy that has more sanctuaries and operating space than ever before. The battlefield is now much larger than it was before.”

    “It seems unlikely that the Paris attacks will generate a more coherent international response,” Liz writes. “Saudi Arabia, America’s most powerful Arab ally, is preoccupied above all by the challenge posed by Iran and is expending its military energies on fighting the Iranian-backed Houthi militias in Yemen. Iran has prioritized the projection of its regional influence through Syria and Iraq to the Mediterranean, funding and arming proxy militias to defend its interests in Shiite-dominated areas of Iraq and to quell the anti-Assad rebellion mostly in the areas around Damascus, the Syrian capital. And Turkey’s attention is focused mainly on its domestic Kurdish problem and on the perceived threat posed by the emergence of an autonomous Kurdish enclave along its border in northern Syria.”

  14. The video in the link below reportedly recorded outside of Aleppo, Syria and posted online Tuesday, features rebels from the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army firing a U.S.-supplied anti-tank guided missile at what it is clearly a U.S.-made Humvee. Rarely do the weapons and equipment of a conflict come together in a single video to highlight how America now fights its wars, but there it is.

  15. Vladimir Putin announced Russia will resume exporting nuclear technology to the Iranian regime. Russia has also contracted to supply Iran with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems.

    And Iran wouldn't share this with ISIS -- who blew up Putin's airliner? So it's odd that the Russian attacks have heavily targeted rebel groups seeking to bring down Assad, who is closely allied with Russia and Iran.

  16. I'm only guessing but, I believe the average American citizen is more at risk from a mass shooting by a young "Christian" white man with mental issues who legally purchased a semi-automatic assault rifle, more so than they are from a foreign Muslim pledging an allegiance to ISIS. Of course, if Iran gets a nuke, that could change. But for the time being, most Americans are more at risk from someone who is texting-while-driving. But the mainstream media is driving the ISIS fear (and playing in to the ISIS strategy) by their constant 24/7 micro-reporting of terrorism — because that drives advertising ratings. But it also gives ISIS a lot of free publicity, which only helps their recruiting efforts.

  17. UPDATE (after Brussels bombing)

    A study of every suicide attack in the world since 1980 — over 4,600 in all — finds what 95% of all suicide attacks have in common; it's not religion, but a specific strategic motivation to respond to a military intervention. Religious fervor is not a motive unto itself. Rather, it serves as a tool for recruitment and a potent means of getting people to overcome their fear of death and natural aversion to killing innocents.