home

ISIS Gets Close to Al Asad Airbase and U.S. Marines

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Feb 12, 2015 at 09:44:43 PM EST
Tags: ISIS, Iraq (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Today ISIS took the town of al Baghdadi in Anbar today, which is just a few miles from the Al Asad air base where more than 300 marines and Danish military are staying as part of a six week training course for the Iraqi forces.

There are media reports ISIS is attacking al Asad Air base. Is the air base in danger? First, the base is very large -- it is the size of Boulder, Colorado. It's hard to see how the marines would be "trapped" as some reports claim. Second, the base has been reporting ISIS has been striking it for weeks, but the U.S. says their attacks are too limited and haphazard to cause any real damage.

ISIS is definitely close to the base as the military today said it bombed an ISIS mortar position "near the Al Asad air base." [More...]

ISIS doesn't let its fighters or media people tweet details of battles as they are ongoing so as not to jeopardize their exact location and plans. And the U.S. military is denying ISIS is striking the base. So there's really not enough reliable reporting to say what's going on right now.

The Marines who are at the base doing training are part of a new Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force and they should be well equipped to handle anything ISIS brings. Could there be casualties? Of course, but I don't think the base is in danger of being "taken."

< Thursday Open Thread | A Challenge To Clinton on Foreign Policy >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    ISIS Gets Close to Al Asad Airbase and U.S. Marines | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Define close Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 07:40:51 AM EST
    This is a base and the surrounding area that my husband knows like the back of his hand.  This base was chosen for a reason, because it is easily protected and defended.  It used to have three easily maintained perimeters before US forces left Iraq.

    Know what else it would be good for?  It's a great place to lure ISIS to and then easily demolish large quantities of them while simultaneously collecting intel on all their communications. I encourage them to make this their next Kobane.

    Habe keine Angst (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 07:56:18 AM EST
    Obama is playing ten deminsional chess.  

    That's the last thing you want (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 08:02:18 AM EST
    But pretty sure on this he is.  He never wants his troops attacked, but he isn't going to stash them some place that isn't strategic.

    Parent
    Or maybe you can't understand (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 08:06:18 AM EST
    the basic strategy of letting the enemy come closer to make it easier to kill them.

    Would you rather they start going out and seek to kill them in a populated area where civilians would be affected as well by air strikes, no matter how "pinpoint" said strikes are supposed to be?

    Parent

    300 Marines at risk too (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 08:15:12 AM EST
    The President is allowing the Republicans to prove their national security capabilities also by giving him the new AUMF they really need to renew, debate, and vote on.  In two years....who stepped up and who cowered is available at election time.  It was unfortunate and irrational how much mileage Republicans got out of the ISIS non-threat during the midterms.

    Parent
    The "prayer rug" found near the border (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 09:16:47 AM EST
    is proof enough for the Faux-addled and the Breitbart-afflicted of the domestic threat posed by ISIS:

    I don't want to alarm you, fellow Americans, but... if Breitbart's goon squad is correct in its analysis, we are in for a whole new brand of Islamic terror sleeper cell on the homeland. If these invisible jihadis can cleverly disguise their prayer rugs as fading and torn Adidas soccer jerseys, what else can they do?



    Parent
    OMG...I'm dying (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 09:21:48 AM EST
    Didn't they watch Homeland?  Any ole rug will do.  Walmart is full of undisguised prayer rugs :)

    Parent
    And Bush Couldn't Win at Checkers... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 08:34:40 AM EST
    ...your point ?

    Parent
    Bush couldn't even win at eating pretzels (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 05:05:46 PM EST


    Parent
    I haven't the vaguest idea (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 08:17:30 AM EST
    as to what Obama is doing and neither does anyone else who has commented.

    I hope MT is right.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 06:19:34 AM EST
    Polonius.

    Parent
    Bold move by ISIS (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 12:27:24 PM EST
    If they pull it off they show that they can get to us and have a huge propaganda victory.

    Even though they've now failed it stirs the dogs of war back home because now they have directly attacked us.

    Are we now at war with ISIS?  Or are we still involved in a counterterrorism strategy?

    Will be interesting to see how the administration and critics react

    Most interesting, Slado, will be (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 03:29:31 PM EST
    how the Congress acts on the AUMF-related request now before it.  Since only Congress has the power to declare war.... Now, Congress has the responsibility to act in some manner squarely before it. Congress can do more, less, or nothing ... tho, as the Denver Post and many others rightfully point out, it does appear that this responsibility will be hard to shirk. Squirm they will; but, with the request before them, how will they pass the potato??? Whatever will Congress do with its Constitutional prerogative and obligation!

    Parent
    Directly attacked us? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 08:27:14 AM EST
    This exact style of attack was attempted at Bagram too.  It's sort of horrific I guess when people kamikaze themselves at you, but our forces don't take it seriously either.  Our bases anticipate this kind of attack and perimeters are built in that anticipation.  If this is a successful propaganda win for them, why hasn't it been every other time it has been used against one of our bases in the past 10 yrs?  It's not a new tactic, nor has it ever been successful.

    Parent
    a different point of view (none / 0) (#12)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    THE FULL ACKBAR: RIGHT WARNS OBAMA WAR PLAN IS A TRAP
    In a blistering column, influential conservative columnist Matthew Continetti calls President Obama's request for congressional authorization for the ongoing war in Iraq and Syria a "trap" and says he would "happily" vote it down. "If the threat of ISIS is as dire as the president says it is in the preamble of his resolution," Continetti writes, "then not only does the president already have the authority to strike granted to him by Article II of the Constitution and the 2001 and 2002 war resolutions, he also should not cavil or hesitate in unleashing every means at his disposal to confront and defeat the enemy." Continetti goes on to say, "I also cannot help thinking that the presidential request is little more than a trap, a bone thrown in the direction of the cloakroom to distract from the collapse of America's position in the Middle East and the approaching deadline for nuclear talks with Iran. How better to provoke infighting among both Republicans and Democrats, to switch the debate from sanctions against Iran to `Rand Paul versus Marco Rubio for the soul of the GOP,' than to start a debate over presidential war powers as the war is going on."

    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 06:33:57 PM EST
    Matthew Continetti says so?

    wow.

    No, ...

    ... seriously.

    Parent

    Well, I know (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Zorba on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 06:54:55 PM EST
    I'm impressed.  </snark>

    Parent
    Obama's request (none / 0) (#13)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 02:01:21 PM EST
    is most definitely a ploy.

    A big dent could be put in the ISIS machine immediately if Obama would just send the Kurds the military equipment that they have been requesting.

    They request 100 trucks and get only 25. They request RPGs and get excuses.

    The Peshmerga has offered to be the US's boots on the ground and have proven themselves capable and loyal -- and yet all Obama does is thumb his nose at them.

    Many get the overwhelming sense that Obama does not want to stop ISIS.

    Parent

    Don't blame Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 04:16:34 PM EST
    Because of the Byzantine politics of the region no one wants to arm up the Kurds. Because of their own Kurdish problems the Turks are dead set against it  nband we must kiss their ass to keep our airbases there. The Shia leadership in Baghdad want nothing of it either and to keep up the fiction of a unified Iraq we oblige them. The Kurds in Iraq have had some level of autonomy for decades, quasi-independent since the fall of Saddam yet they get no love.

    If was up to me I would give the Kurds an army and a country, should have been done years ago. A few trucks and RPGs are probably not enough to make much of a difference at this point. Meanwhile  the rest of the neighboring States, heavily armed on our dime, do very little. No, this current cluster-fk is the product of decades of screw ups at the cost of trillions.
    Obama is merely playing his cards as dealt, he is sitting at a complex, deadly expensive game that started long before he was born, a game that few if any presidents have ever won.

    Parent

    Read about the role of Congress (none / 0) (#15)
    by christinep on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    in the Constitution. Article I, section 8 ... especially. (Transl. in the vernacular would mean that the here-is-what-I-would-do talkers in the Halls of Congress will soon be called out on whether they will--to put it nicely--"fish or cut bait.")

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 03:48:48 AM EST
    But both sides are playing politics with the AMUF.  

    Obama repeatedly said he didn't need it.  So why now?  Because he wants to be sure everyone gets the blame if things go south.

    Republians are just blatantly playing politics with it so no argument there.  They should issue there own plan and then let's have a debate for the good of the country and at this moment for me the good of our military so maybe just this once they go into a mission with a chance of achieving something tangible.

    Obama has the fact that congress should be doing this on his side during this political squabble but we are all much more savy then to believe this is his real motivation aren't we?  

    Also it's not partisan opposition to his proposal.  It's bipartisan.  The cynic in me wonders if Obama purposefully put out a plan that he knew wouldn't fly for political reasons.   Unfortunately that is just the natural reaction for me now.


    Parent

    While I don't pretend to be a mind-reader ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    I do suppose that all Presidents "play politics." That is how they reach that Office.  Politicians, whatever their rank, cannot help but consider the practical (aka political) ramifications with even their most major acts.  Perhaps, the woman the earth once knew as Mother Teresa would erase any posturing of her selfless acts ... but, she is a Saint!

    Look, Slado, the Presidential intent question that you raise is not relevant.  It doesn't matter; because what matters is whether Congress will choose to act as it has the power to do under the Constitution's Article I, section 8 ... or not.  In acknowledging that the obligation now rests with Congress, you tend to try to make the issue into a "side."  It isn't.  Rather the President put forth, legitimately, his position via the draft AUMF ... and, whatever the conjurors or tarot card readers might want to devise, the President has called the bluff of those who just might want to avoid the responsibility.

    Bottom line: Sending the draft AUMF to Congress for thorough, open discussion & debate should accomplish what the Constitution intended ... and, that would be in the best interests of all of us.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    lets see what they do after hearings and maybe just maybe we'll get an AMUF and plan.

    My biggest worry?  Neither side has a good plan because neither side knows what to do once we're finished "destroying" ISIS.  A term by the way thrown around with great ease which makes me nervous.

    Parent

    I believe our President's motivation is in line (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:32:38 PM EST
    With what our founders intended.  This is the longest war we have ever fought.  The mission has changed numerous times.  I hear all the God Damned time on Fox News that our President is acting like a King....no he isn't and Congress needs to vote on an AUMF!  If they let him down, he will move forward with what he believes is in the best interest of the nation.  He will do it alone as any great President would...sheesh

    Parent
    "influential" Machievellian-minded (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    types can only see self-serving  Machievellian maneuvers everywhere they look..

    Parent
    What we need right now is (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 05:30:27 PM EST
    less politics.

    They will not/never attack our marines (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jack203 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    Any more than 5 or so together at least.  It's highly doubtful the Airbase is in any danger if we suspect they are going there.

    ISIS will go back to what they always do.  Attacking soft targets with overwhelming force, and executing the prisoners in the cruelest fashion possible.  

    Against US forces, they will set up roadside bombs, and ambush hit and runs.

    These psychos aren't "military superstars".

    25 ISIS fighters killed... (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Sat Feb 14, 2015 at 04:26:51 PM EST
    in attack on base in Anbar.

    Read this in comments (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jack203 on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 07:12:30 PM EST
    Part of the first comment in democraticunderground.com.  Agreed completely.....  

    "LOL. Fearsome folks, those ISIL 'fighters', four of them detonated their suicide idiot belts half a mile from the forward base and a couple were blown up by base sniper fire. Followed by a wave of 20 or so 'jihadists' that barely got off a shot.

    And these guys frighten Americans because.....they may export this incompetence 10000 miles away? "

    Parent

    10,000 miles no. `1,000 miles yes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 09:08:43 PM EST
    IS in Libya Beheads 21 Egyptians

    Parent
    Gotta admit (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jack203 on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 09:54:00 PM EST
    The bozo's in Syria and Iraq don't concern me, but whatever's going on in Libya gets me somewhat nervous.

    Parent
    A very good article (none / 0) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Sun Feb 15, 2015 at 11:52:16 PM EST
    on ISIS and what they want published in the Atlantic. link

    From the article
    (1) The Islamic States  rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

    (2)Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq--they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.

    So proxy warfare = good (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 07:49:32 AM EST
    But suggesting we should arm moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS = "hawkish"?  Or does it suddenly become acceptable when Obama actually does it?

    Funny how those goalposts tend to move so much ...

    Parent

    ISIS and Assad (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    HRC wanted to arm Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad; it was not about fighting ISIS (which by the way has beheaded American citizens). BIG DIFFERENCE!

    You can also whine as much as you like but HRC has a trust deficit when it comes to war as far as I am concerned. I would not hand my car keys to anyone who asked for it. They would need to establish trust first that they would drive it safely. This is now things work in this world and this how it will always be. Grow up and stop whining!

    Parent

    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 04:29:05 PM EST
    As far as you are concerned ...

    You really should try to keep up.  The WH has already acknowledged they want the rebels to fight ISIS AND Assad.

    Oops!

    BTW - Pointing out your hypocrisy isn't "whining", but it is fun!

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 05:12:28 PM EST
    Deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken:

    "The moderate opposition is key to both being able a counterweight on the ground to ISIL, and then, over time, also being a counterweight to Assad," he added...

    "Building them up enables us to have forces on the ground that can deal with ISIL as we use our air power and other unique assets," Blinken said. "At the same time, if you're going to change the dynamics in Syria, if you're going to get to a political transition that moves Assad out, you're going to have to have a strong moderate opposition."

    Parent

    The rebels that HRC was referring to (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    Were Sunnis who were part Assad's military prior to the civil war.  The State Department had communication with them.  They were Syrians who knew the Syrian infrastructure, had worked all their lives within it,, knew Assad's forces strengths and weaknesses, knew where certain arms and ammunition were kept, and had already embraced secularism their whole lives.

    We use past tense when discussing them these days because we are pretty sure they are all dead.  They were a great danger to Assad so he was hunting them, they were also a great danger to Al-Nusra who wanted this to become a religous conflict and could not afford to allow secular Sunnis to survive who stood a chance of defeating Assad's forces and who could take over Syria while easily understanding and allowing the secular infrastructure to survive.

    Those Sunni rebels were hunted ferociously by both Assad forces and Al-Nusra Front and later ISIS to the point that we are fairly certain they are all dead.  Those were the rebels that Clinton speaks of, but they are all dead now.  Who would Clinton support at this point in Syria?  They are dead

    Parent

    Why was HRC so intent (none / 0) (#39)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    in wading into Syria's civil war? Because the Saudis told her to do that and she was very keen to please them?

    This is my fear about a HRC presidency. She will be doing things at the behest of the Saudi monarchy-getting America involved in all sorts of regional disputes in the middle east that the Saudi monarchy would like America to settle on their behalf.

    Parent

    Got some tinfoil for that theory? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    Who cares about specious, baseless claims phrased as "fears" and in the form of "questions"?

    You sound like one of those Obama/Manchurian conspiracy theorists.

    Parent

    Oh, no! It's too late! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    Your theory is true!  The Saudis secretly control the US government already -  through the Obama administration!

    Hahahahahahahahahaha ...

    That's some great company you keep ...

    Parent

    Clinton was correct about Syria falling (4.20 / 5) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 08:02:10 PM EST
    Into a prolonged civil war.  The majority of leaders and experts believed that Syria was too stable to fall into the horrible civil war that it has.  She was one of the few that questioned the perception that Syria was bullet proof and it turned out that she was correct.

    And really?  You are now arguing that you fear she will become the puppet of Saudi Arabia?  Not many comments back you feared she would become the puppet of Israel.  How does that all rationalize out? Are you okay?  Or is your baseless bias determining that you become a human pretzel?

    Parent

    Pretzel (none / 0) (#43)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    The monarchy in Saudi Arabia and Netanyahu (Israel is a democracy, there are many dissenting voices in Israel and Jewish Americans relating to the policies of Netanyahu) are on the same page when it comes to regional policies pertaining to Iran. I think you already knew that!

    I think you are protesting too much and have gone out on a limb trying to defend her cockamamie position regarding Syrian rebels. Her position regarding Syrian rebels and a "muscular" foreign policy is beginning to resemble world views of McCain and Graham. You have become the human pretzel for mocking McCain while defending HRC when they have almost similar world views about foreign policy.

    Parent

    "Cockamamie position regarding ..."? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 09:08:50 PM EST
    ... Syrian rebels"?!?

    You mean the same position Obama took once he realized that ISIS wasn't a "junior varsity" issue and it would give him a way to get rid of Assad?

    Guess he can learn from his mistakes.

    Parent

    Oddly, Clinton did make a correct (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 09:37:41 PM EST
    Analysis of the Syrian situation.  She doesn't really need to be defended, she was correct.

    Parent
    That is what she and her 2008 campaign (none / 0) (#47)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 10:01:46 PM EST
    thought about her Iraq War vote also. Here we go again...


    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 10:54:30 PM EST
    That's the best you can come up with?  Sorry from being a ridiculous analogy, it's false.

    Not to mention the fact that Obama has note adopted her position on arming Syrian rebels.

    Parent

    Unfortunately the window for aiding (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 12:21:07 AM EST
    The FSA no longer exists.  Obama is left to hope that in the future some moderate faction rises up that he may support.

    Parent
    "Apart" from being ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 07:44:51 AM EST
    ... a ridiculous analogy ...

    Autocorrect on the phone.

    Parent

    BTW - That "cockamamie position" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 09:25:01 PM EST
    ... (arming moderate Syrian rebels) - in addition to the one Obama belatedly adopted - is the same position urged by not just Clinton, but also his own ambassador, SecDef and CIA director.  He// - his own ambassador resigned because of it.

    Guess they talked some sense into him, huh?

    Parent

    Trust deficit? (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 10:30:19 PM EST
    My goodness, and I thought that--of the other potential competitors--she has the most knowledge, the most salient experience, and the appropriate decisiveness to merit my trust.  Funny how two people can see things so differently....

    Parent
    Correct (none / 0) (#50)
    by Politalkix on Mon Feb 16, 2015 at 11:12:30 PM EST
    HRC is on very shaky grounds with me when it comes to foreign policy and issues relating to war. I would have more confidence on the judgement of many Democrats with less experience than her and even a Republican like Lincoln Chafee, on such matters.

    She is in a better position with me on domestic issues.

    Parent

    There once was a contingent (none / 0) (#53)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 01:31:20 PM EST
    in the Democratic Party in 1976 so opposed to then-candidate Jimmy Carter that the group moved from candidate to candidate to find somebody, anybody.  That casting about lasted almost to the nomination process on the convention floor ... the unsuccessful opposition group was called the ABC Group to denote that their primary cohesion was "anybody but Carter."

    You do seem to convey an anybody-but-Clinton mindset.  That is your prerogative, of course. But, as we shortly will enter into the campaign, I am interested in whether there is any particular nationally-known, available Democrat who satisfies your foreign policy touchstone? After reading a number of your comments involving Hillary Clinton now, I am curious ... because you seem to be in touch with political reality in so many areas and because you do not appear to profess political purity in any specified area.

    Please understand, politalkix, that I don't intend to play gotcha; rather, my curiosity is getting the better of me in the context of your background knowledge. Nor do I mean to bulldoze via my own surmise that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 since reality often takes strange turns.  So ... is this all about a new version of ABC for you or is there a real person that fits your foreign policy standard in statement and/or acts.  (Oh, if it is AnybodyButClinton as your driving force ... well, as said before, that is your option.)  Peace with you.

    Parent

    Those options (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    So ... is this all about a new version of ABC for you or is there a real person that fits your foreign policy standard in statement and/or acts.

    ... are not mutually exclusive.

    Parent

    Yes. It should read "and/or" (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 02:25:30 PM EST


    Parent
    It is about issues, not personalities (none / 0) (#56)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    You have got it completely backwards. Instead of starting with issues, you have already moved to a personality.

    To simplify things for you (since it will require me otherwise to write a lot of lines for which I do not have time at this moment), I will support any candidate who will say that their candidacy is a marriage between Elizabeth Warren on domestic policy and President Obama on foreign policy. For eg: If Joe Biden says that I will support him. If Elizabeth Warren decides to run and completely picks up Obama's foreign policy, I will support her. And if HRC is willing to do that, I will support HRC also.

    Unfortunately, some of you are so high on the HRC bandwagon, that you are completely willing to short circuit a time honored process to vet a candidate. You have already jumped to "this is what you are going to get from HRC and if you do not like what she is offering to be able to get excited and support her, you have CDS or anybody-but-Clinton is your driving force.

    Please take a deep breath and think about how the nomination process is supposed to actually work.

    Parent

    You keep saying this - It's BS (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    Unfortunately, some of you are so high on the HRC bandwagon, that you are completely willing to short circuit a time honored process to vet a candidate.

    "Some of you"???  Do tell, who - precisely - is making this silly argument?

    Other than you, of course.

    Parent

    Interesting, but evasive (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 04:49:08 PM EST
    The paragraph about seeking a candidate who would describe him/herself as holding to values or policies midway between person x and person y is an interesting answer, indeed.  It is a nicely-stated non-responsive remark ... the principal reason is that it is difficult to conceive of a serious presidential candidate ever describing him/herself as part of one person married to or mixed with the attributes of another.  

    What I glean from your comment, politalkix, is that there is no such live person who subscribes to your foreign policy view and who is or may be seeking the Presidency in 2016.  Trying to proclaim that everyone (or some of us) are trying to push too fast, etc. etc. is a fun tactic; but, playing offense to detract from what seems to be the fact that there is no known candidate that fits your foreign policy standard is merely "playing offense."  Good luck on your search for your candidate.

    Parent

    There are a number of Senators (none / 0) (#59)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 05:44:07 PM EST
    who are supporting the President on his foreign policy agenda-including dialog with Iran on a nuclear deal, issues relating to Syria, Ukraine, dealing with Putin etc. Ofcourse, the current Secretary of State and the Vice President also support the President's foreign policy. None of them have voiced opinions that they differ with him and will abandon his foreign policy if they choose to run.

    There won't be much detailed information about foreign policy inclinations of Governors till they announce a run. All three candidates who have said that they are considering a run so far (Webb, Sanders, O'Malley)are to the left of HRC on foreign policy. I do not like Webb as a candidate on some issues but even he is to the left of HRC on foreign policy. I will expect any Democrat that runs for nomination to be to the left of HRC and create an agenda based on the President's foreign policy to court his supporters. HRC is leaving a very large gap to the left of her; she can either choose to plug it herself or let someone else fill it.


    Parent

    Overstating? (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    The statement that former Senator Webb is to the left of Clinton?  That is new & a surprise to me ... Webb is usually regarded as more conservative in many respects than Hillary Clinton.  My understanding about O'Malley is that he is not to the left of Hillary Clinton (or, at least, is not regarded that way by donors.)

    Obviously, as well, Hillary Clinton--as President Obama's Secretary of State for the full first term--aligned completely with his foreign policy.  (The only possible "daylight" between the two that has been mentioned is whether there should have been an earlier intervention with regard to Syria.  At this point, no one can say what the outcome of a more direct approach earlier would have meant regarding Syria ... opinions are all over the place, a position which the former Secretary agrees with.)  Her position, ironically, is so aligned and congruent with the President's in the foreign policy arena that it is hard to tell the difference.

    I'm sure that you'll find a candidate if you keep searching :)

    Parent

    You really think Webb is militarily left (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 08:42:00 PM EST
    Of Hillary?  Because I say he is only tailoring his responses to get into the Oval Office.

    This is the guy who once criticized John Kerry for joining a Veitnam veterans group that was against the Vietnam war.  This is the guy with a history of gross sexism in print.  I get a giggle out of him pitching a fit about Obama overstepping his CIC authority now that I know Webb is eyeballing the office.  Because if Webb as President feels like troops need to be deployed, nobody is going to tell the rest of this country to go stick it if they don't like it like a ex marine :). We should probably stick with a civilian right now.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#62)
    by Politalkix on Tue Feb 17, 2015 at 10:37:16 PM EST
    There are problems with Webb.
    Maybe we should ask John Kerry to run once again to get the President's foreign policy that I like. Somebody whose staff will call Netanyahu ch*ckensh*t and be willing to put him in place.... and work well with Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, Abe and other leaders to solve global problems jointly without waving "American exceptionalism" in everybody's face...

    Parent
    Hahahahahaha ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 18, 2015 at 06:26:07 AM EST
    Do you even think before you post?

    Maybe we should ask John Kerry to run once again to get the President's foreign policy that I like. Somebody whose staff will call Netanyahu ch*ckensh*t and be willing to put him in place

    So you actually want a POTUS who will call other world leaders "chicken$hit""?  Or won't do it themselves, but who's staff will do it?!?  You do realize that Kerry condemned the remark, calling it "disgraceful" and "damaging", right?

    and work well with Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, Abe and other leaders to solve global problems jointly without waving "American exceptionalism" in everybody's face...

    Are you talking about Obama?

    Obama and `American Exceptionalism - Factcheck

    Bobby Jindal revived an old criticism about President Obama's penchant for multilateralism, but he went too far when he said Obama "won't proudly proclaim American exceptionalism."

    At the U.S. Military Academy last year, Obama pronounced unequivocally: "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being." That's just one of many examples.

    Obama, April 2, 2012: It's worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism, and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism.

    What makes us special -- a lot of times we talk about American exceptionalism and how much we love this country, and there are so many wonderful things about our country. But what makes us the envy of the world has not just been our ability to generate incredible wealth for a few people; it's the fact that we've given everybody a chance to pursue their own true measure of happiness. (Applause.) That's who we are.

    A lot of people talk about American exceptionalism. I'm a firm believer in American exceptionalism. You know why I am? It's because of folks like this. It's because we don't run and hide when there's a problem....

    Etc., etc., etc.

    Did you believe that winger myth because you liked it, or did your latest, lame ayyempt at attacking Clinton just backfire ...

    ... again?

    Parent

    I don't want you to get me wrong though (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 18, 2015 at 07:32:58 AM EST
    Clinton needs challenged, and if Webb wants to get into a contest of Leftness...he should.  He has some mansplainin to do but go for it Webb.  Let's start talking left.

    Parent
    ISIS Gets Close to Al Asad Airbase and U.S. Marines | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment